83

CHAPTER III

RAJAJI MINISTRY AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

Since the outbreak of Second World War in 1939 the Government

of India placed the administration of provinces under the control of

Governors. In 1946 election was held and Congress bagged 165 seats in

Madras. T.Prakasam was made the Chief Minister. In 1947 Prakasam

Ministry was dismissed and Omandhur Ramaswamy was made the Premier

of Madras Presidency. In the meantime, India attained independence and

Rajaji became the first Governer General which elevated his status as one

of the greatest leaders of the Congress. Despite being a great leader, Rajaji

held Brahmanical methods. As he belonged to Tamilnadu, he wanted to

introduce reforms favourable to Brahminism in his home State. In the

meantime, Omandhur Ramasamy Reddiar, who was the Chief Minister of

Madras, resigned his post in 1950 and Kumarasamy Raja was made the

Chief Minister. In January 1950 India became a Repuplic. As per the new

Constitution general elections were held in 1952. The Congress which

captured more seats felt that Rajaji was an able leader who would bring a

stable government in Tamilnadu. Known for his dedication and patriotism,

Rajaji was elected as the Chief Minister. Utilising this last opportunity,

Rajaji indroduced the kulakkalvi thittam (caste-based system of education)

in Tamilnadu, which proved detrimental to the Congress rule. The

kulakkalvi thittam was interpreted as an indirect way of imposing

Brahminism. This scheme of Rajaji earned vehement opposition from

 84

different political ranks and even from his own partymen which brought

about the resignation of Rajaji in 1954.

Independence and Congress Politics, 1946-1952

The first Rajaji Government went out office late in the year 1939 after

the outbreak of World War II 1 . The Governor’s Advisors were in charge

of the Province between 1939 and 1945. In 1945 at the election manifesto

of the Congress, the need for the urgent reform of land tenure system

was stressed and also the necessity for the removal of intermediaries

between the peasant and the State. In the election the Congress Party won

majority and assumed office in Madras in1946 2 . The Congress swept the

polls winning 165 out of the 205 seats in Madras. T.Prakasam was elected

the Chief Minister along with ten ministers by Governor Henry Follinight

on 30 April 1946. Ruckmani Lakshmipathi was the first woman Minister of

Public Health in the Ministry. She started maternity care in villages and

attempted to improve the health conditions of the poor people3 . On 23

March 1947 T.Prakasam was replaced by Omandur Ramaswami Reddiyar

as Chief Minister. In April 1947 the Madras Legislature had recommended

for the linguistic formation of Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra as

separate provinces under the new constitution and a provision for early

appointment of a boundary commission or other machinery suitable for the

provinces 4 .

1
. M.L.A Debates, Vol.IX, 1939, p.331.
2
. Madras Information, 1950, p.15.
3
Legislative Measures of Popular Ministers, Vol.I, Madras, pp.80-81.
4
. Menon, K.P.S., Souvenir, Rajaji’s Anniversory Celebration, Neyveli, 1993, p.129.
 85

When India attained independence on 15 August 1947, the task of

developing a constitution for the nation was undertaken by the Constituent

Assembly of India, composing of elected representatives with Rajendra

Prasad as its President 5 . Rajaji became the first Governor General in

independent India. As Chief Minister Omandur Ramaswami Reddiyar and

his Ministers celebrated the Independence Day on 15 August 1947 at Fort

St. George, Madras 6 . His administration continued till 1949. Omandur

resigned from the post of Premiership on 6 April 19497 . P.S. Kumaraswamy

Raja was appointed as Chief Minister with eleven Ministers on 7 April

1949 8 . In this time, the drafting committee prepared the constitution 9 . On 26

January 1950 India was declared as a Republic 10 . In 1950 the Assembly sat

for eighty six days and transacted official business on all days excepting five

days on which non-official business was transacted. His ministry continued

till 1952 11 .

Rajaji’s Second Ministry

At the first general election held in 1952, the Congress Party

captured 133 out of the 190 seats in the Madras Legislative Assembly.

5
. Vasu Durgadass, The Constitution of India, New Delhi, 1993, p.131.
6
. Tamilnadu Sattamantra Pavalavila Sattamantra Peravai Vairavila, Madras, 1977,
p.211.
7
. The Hindu, 7 Apr.1949, p.1.
8
. Ibid., 8 Apr. 1949, p.1.
9
. Sen, S.P., Dictionary of National Biography, vol.III, Culcutta,1974, p.526.
10
. The Hindu, 27 Jan. 1950. p.1.
11
. Legislative Measures of Popular Ministries, op.cit., p.140.
 86

The Congress Party formed the Government with Rajaji as the Chief

Minister 12 . The Congress was still the largest single Party to form the

ministry in the State 13 . The uncertainly that prevailed among the public and

the Congress Party in particular regarding the leadership of the Party was

cleared up with the unanimous election of C. Rajaji, who agreed to take up

the task of leading the Party and forming the Ministry in the State. There

was a general wave of hope throughout the Province on this account. The

public felt that with his election there was every chance of a stable ministry

being formed 14 . His address to the members of the Congress Party was

widely welcomed as a happy augury. That confidence in the organization

grew again and was abundantly evident from the mammoth gathering at a

public meeting addressed by him on 13 April 1952 in Madras. In his speech,

he reiterated the national character of the Congress organization and pleaded

that, “the Congress should think of itself not in terms of a Party but as

representing the nation” 15 . Soon after his election as leader The Hindu in

the course of an otherwise appreciative editorial observed that he should

seek an early opportunity to get himself elected to the Lower House 16 .

The constitution of India provided a three-tiered process. Elections

to the Lower House or House of People (Lok Sabha) at the centre and State

Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabhas), elections to the Upper House or

12
. The Hindu, 13 Apr. 1952, p.2.
13
. Fortnightly Report, 16 Feb. 1952.
14
. Ibid., 17 Apr. 1952.
15
. The Hindu, 18 Apr. 1952, p.2.
16
. Raj Mohan Gandhi, The Rajaji Story 1937-1972, Bombay, 1984, pp.228-229.
 87

the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) at the Centre and the Legislative

Councils (Vidhan Parishads) in the State 17 .

The details of 1952 general elections for Madras Legislative

Assembly and Lok Sabha are given below:

First General Elections for Madras Legislative Assembly 18

(1951-52)

Parties Seats won Votes Percent of Votes

Congress 133 33,36,054 35.5

D.M.K. - - -

Communist Party 17 9,09,022 10.0

of India

Praja Socialist 3 10,88, 173 12.0

Party

Socialist - - -

Forward Bloc 3 - -

Other Parties & 34 38,78,829 42.5

Independents

Total 190 92,12,078 -

17
. G.O. Ms. No.885, 21 Mar. 1952.
18
. Report on First General Election in India, 1951-52, Vol.II, New Delhi, 1955,
pp.844-845.
 88

First General Election in Madras for Lok Sabha 19

(1951-52)

Parties Seats won

Congress 22

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam -

Communist Party of India 2

Praja Socialist Party -

Socialist -

Forward Bloc 1

Tamilnad Toilers 2

Common Wealth 3

Independents 5

Sri Prakasa who assumed charge as Governor of Madras on 12

March 1952 continued to hold office during that year. The Council of

Ministers who sworn in office on the forenoon of 10 April 1952 continued

to function till 30 September 1953 20 . The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,

having failed to capture any seat at the 1952 elections, sought access to the

political system outside the democratic frame work through mass

demonstration and agitation. Congress leaders like Rajaji and Kamaraj

became very popular. At the Central level Congress made a stable

government.

19
. Ibid., pp.846-847.
20
. Madras State Administration Report, 1952-53, Madras, p.10.
 89

Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952

The tenants in the Tanjore district were not in the same position as the

tenants in some of the former zamindari estates. There was vast difference

between them. In Tanjore district, they were mere pannaiyals and wage-

earners or they were people who merely got some remuneration during the

agricultural season only. All these were taken into consideration for

the purpose of seeing whether the provisions were equitable and fair.

There was a cry everywhere that the tiller of the soil was victimised and

he was suffering at the hands of the mirasdars 21 . It became fashionable on

those days that while land tenure system had changed as it greatly affected

the tillers, as if they were placed in the same position as that of Russia or

some other place.

The land revenue collected from the land-owners were utilized for

providing all the ameliorative measures for the urban areas. No doubt, there

were the industries. But they did not pay as much as the land-owners by way

of purpose that Tanjore tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Bill of 1952 was

introduced in the Legislature 22 . The cultivating tenant except for getting

orders from the land-owners or his agents did not know very much about

actual cultivation. Agriculture required not only mere tilling of the soil, but

also great ability and brain. One had to choose the right season for sowing

proper seeds, which were suited for the particular season. The land owners

too were given some protection. Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection

21
. M.L.C. Debates, Vol.III, 17 Nov. 1952, p. 129.
22
. Idem.
 90

Bill, 1952 were as to afford all facilities to the land owners so that they used

as much of their ability as possible for securing maximum production from

the soil 23 .

Ananda Nambiar was one of the Communist leader and member of

Parliament in Tanjore district and he incidentally claimed credit for the

Tenants and Panniyal Protection and for the reduction of the daily

allowance of elected member of Parliament from Rs.40/- to Rs.35/-. 24 The

Tanjore Tenants and Panniyal Protection Ordinance along with the

Amending Ordinance, continued to engage the attention of the press

throughout the State. The clause in the Amending Ordinance to the effect

that certain items of cultivation, expenses must be met from the gross

produce and not from the tenants share alone was generally welcomed as

setting right an inequity in the earlier ordinance since it was felt that it

would be too much to expect the tenant to bear the entire cultivation

expenses himself. All sections of the press continued to demand extension of

a similar reform to the other districts in the State and papers like

Sarvodaya and Navabharatha opined that the deep rooted fear and

uncertainty about the future which prevailed among the tenants could be

removed only by permanent land tenancy reforms 25 . In the district of

Tanjore the relations between land owners and their agents on the one hand

and tenants and farm labourers on the other hand had become strained

23
. M.L.C. Debates, Vol.III, 17 Nov. 1952, p.54.
24
. Fortnightly Report, 29 Sept. 1952.
25
. The Hindu, 29 Sept. 1952, p.9.
 91

resulting in the displacement of tenants and the dismissal of farm labourers.

With agrarian crimes and disturbances the situation threatened to cause

deterioration in agricultural production26 .

The Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Bill invited strong

debates in the House. Congress Minister G. Krishnamurthi supported the

Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Bill, 1952 27 . M.A. Manickavelu

Naicker, opposed the Bill for two reasons. In first, there were many

landlords in Tanjore district who owned lands in different villages.

Secondly, even in granting there were such landlords owning lands in

several villages and it became a difficult process to go about from village to

village counting the extent of land held by them in different villages. So he

opposed the Bill 28 .

C. Nathamuni Naidu, who was in the opposition, supported the Bill.

He said that Tanjore district was the kamadenu of Tamilnad. The

relationship between the landlords and tenants was very much strained

during 1952 which made it incumbent on the Government and Chief

Minister Rajaji to interfere and restore good relationship between them.

As there was trouble between the landowners and tenants, the Government

felt it incumbent to interfere in the interest of the administration of the

whole State and solved the problem. So he supported when the Governor

of Madras promulgated the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Bill,

26
. M.L.C. Debates, Vol.III, 5 Dec. 1952, p.296.
27
. Ibid., 8 Dec. 1952, p.389.
28
. Ibid., 8 Dec. 1952, p.392.
 92

1952. 29 K.Bhashyam, another opposition member said that thousands of

persons had come in saying that “they were in possession of the land at that

time and as such they may raise a hue and cry for restoration of the land to

them.” 30 In Tanjore district there had been no tenancy agreement between

the landlord and the tenant. 31

Newspaper Madras Mail was also rather apprehensive as to the real

import of this Bill and opined that in the guise of protecting the tenant the

present Bill sought to introduce revolutionary changes. 32 Act XIV of 1952

(The Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952) reproduced the

provinces of Madras Ordinance VI of 1952 with certain modifications and

purported to remove those causes of friction that had led to agrarian crime in

the Tanjore district. It provided for the re-instatement of cultivating tenants

who had been evicted by the land owners either in favour of other tenants or

in favour of his own pannaiyals. 33 It gave security of tenure for five years

to each tenant and devised a machinery for settling disputes. It also provided

29
. M.L.C. Debates, Vol.III, 6 Dec. 1952, p.349.
30
. Ibid., p.401.
31
. The Bill was congratulated on having secured even more than it had
hoped for, the movement had betrayed a deplorable wobbling on the very
few points on which, with some what fuller knowledge of the prevailing
practices in the district. They seemed at first inclined to redress some of
the common injustices in their original proposals’. Discussing the various
defects in the Bill, the paper concluded that ‘this piece of legislation had
neither served the interests of social justice nor promoted protection.
(The Hindu, 7 Dec. 1952, p.11).
32
. The Madras Mail, 7 Dec. p.4.
33
. Madras State Administrative Report, 1952-53, p.7.
 93

a machinery for enquiring into the dismissal of farm labourers and for their

restoration on just and equitable terms when the dismissal was wrongful.

Provision was made for the division of the gross produce between the tenant

and the land owner in the ratio of 2:3 or such higher proportion favorable to

the tenant as had been agreed upon between the parties. The Act further

entitled the tenant to raise at his risk, any crop and to retain the produce after

giving one-fifth of it to the land-owner. The Act also fixed the minimum

wages which should be paid to the agricultural labour. 34 These measures

added credit to Rajaji in the farm front which however got erosion when he

introduced the elementary education scheme, on caste-based lines.

New Education Scheme (Kulakkalvi Thittam)

Rajaji introduced new elementary education scheme on 31 May 1953.

This scheme made;

i) class room hours to be cut by half and

ii) children were to learn the craft of their parents or of a master-

craftsman in the village.

Most of the children assisted in the work of their fathers and mothers

and learn the family trade without school or institute well35 . The farmer,

carpenter, cobbler, sweeper, smith, weaver, shopkeeper, cart-driver- all

these millions of humble folk, unconscious of the ambitions and the

ideologies of bigger people, carried on as if nothing were happening and

so lived on.

34
. Ibid., p.8.
35
. M.L.A. Debates, Vol.IX, 1953, p.1739
 94

Rajaji asserted,

The food is grown, the cloth is woven, the sheep are shorn, the cows

are grazed, the cart-wheels and the ploughs are built and repaired,

because, the respective castes are still there and the homes were

homes as well as masters to whom the inspiring children were

automatically apprenticed 36 .

Rajagopalachari explained the principal features of the new

elementary education scheme as follows:

i) It was not to give home exercise to children, but leave them

absolutely free during the non-school hours.

ii) Parents engaged private tutors for their children, who kept the

child busy with lessons and worked the moment he returned

from school, not only tutoring the child, but also leaving more

home work for the child to do.

iii) Besides that boys should be taken by the teachers in groups to

the village potter, smith, barber, dhobi and made to see those

artisans at work and how to understand and how they did their

work.

iv) He had himself sat for hours watching how the potter made his

clay, turned the wheel, made the earthen vessel or the smith

beaten red-hot iron into shape or fitted the iron type on the

36
. The Hindu, 8 May 1953, p.8.
 95

cart-wheel, and considered that as good an education as more

learnt then during long hours at school 37 .

The New Elementary Education Scheme was effected from the school year

of 1953-1954, in which some merits had been in the scheme. There were

reduction in hours of class-room work and avoidance of severance from the

economic and cultural life of the village people 38 .

Implementation of the Scheme

In 1952 C. Subramanian was appointed as Education Minister in the

Rajaji’s Cabinet. After taking charge as Minister the former helped to

implement the new elementary education scheme. Besides, C. Subramanian

supported the new elementary education scheme in the Legislative

Assembly. 39 C. Subramanian said in the House,

the State Government as such is spending about a half crore rupees

on elementary education alone. This amount represented about 72.5

percent of the entire expenditure on elementary education, five

percent being borne by private agencies and the balance of about 22.5

percent being borne by local bodies40 . Therefore, the total elementary

education budget as far as the entire State was concerned, was to be a

round about Rs. six crores. By spending this large sum for educating

nearly fifty percent of children, it wanted to give education to the

other fifty percent also; it was necessary to think of the financial

37
. Raj Mohan Gandhi, op.cit., p.235.
38
. Madras State Administration Report, 1953-43, p.28.
39
. M.L.A .Debates, Vol.XVII, 21 May 1954, p.235.
40
. Ibid., Vol.XVI, 14 May 1954, p.132.
 96

burden which should be undertaken in that task. An addition of

23,000 schools and a corresponding number of teachers, it was

estimated, would require another Rs. ten to Rs. twelve crores as

assistance from the State alone, apart from what the community as

such would be contributing to put up buildings and all those things.

Whether with existing resources, it should be able to face this

financial problem was a thing which the Madras Legislature had

pondered over before finalizing the scheme of elementary education

when should adopt and which should be suitable for the State 41 .

The social qualities and development which students were not only

inadequate in them but got them out of harmony with the social environment

of the State mainly consisted of villages. Especially C.Subramaniam wanted

to give universal education to all boys and girls and it was a sort of

education which would solve the problem of employment. The Minister did

not aim at an ‘education which would increase unemployment because of

the very nature of education imparted in schools’. This was the problem

which were attempted to be solved by Mahatma Gandhi through basic

education. That was the spirit of basic education 42 . Therefore, to be in

consonance with that spirit, he had made the necessary changes in the

scheme of elementary education and the modified scheme of elementary

education was made only as an attempt towards that end. It attempted to

solve the problem of providing education to all children by shift system, by

41
. Ibid., p.181.
42
. The Hindu, 18 May 1954, p.7.
 97

giving a different concept of education and a different atmosphere, a

different type of training and a different mental training and outlook to

children 43 .

The shift system was not discovered for the new scheme of

elementary education for its introduction. The Madras and Bombay

governments introduced this in the first two standards where there was

compulsory education in the first five standards in Kerala. So the shift

system was not a new method which has been brought about in so far as the

modified scheme of elementary education scheme was concerned 44 . In the

Assembly, members assailed the profounder of this scheme stating that a

potter’s son was asked to learn only pottery and that only hereditary

avocation was taught to the children which was an attempt to perpetuate

caste system. C. Subramanian strongly objected this point and stated that

there was a great misunderstanding. Further his own hope was that it should

be possible for children belonging to the so-called higher castes like the

Brahmins to learn a cobbler’s job. He wanted the caste system based on the

avocation should go and the professions or avocations as such should not

have any dishonors attached to them. He made a hypothetical argument

infavour of the scheme that it should remove the stigma attached to

particular professions by making the supposed higher caste people also to

take to any job and that it should be the best way for abolishing caste

system. If a proper training and proper mental aptitude and atmosphere were

43
. M.L.A .Debates, Vol.XVI, 14 May 1954, p.288
44
. Ibid., p.289.
 98

not provided at the primary stage the children were not going to get it either

at the secondary or at the collegiate stage. Therefore it was necessary to give

education to all children especially to have the right type of elementary

education 45 .

Though the new elementary education system was introduced by

C. Subramanian, the system was not recognized and accepted by the people.

C. Subramanian was ready to go-ahead with the scheme considering the

education scheme as a national scheme. Hence he expected people to

co-operate to this scheme 46 .

Opposition to the Scheme

This scheme, however, received strong opposition from Dravida

Munnetra Kazhagam. Rajaji’s new elementary education was criticized and

condemned by E.V.Ramaswamy and his Party members, for Periyar

considered it as Kulakkalvi Thittam. In order to stop this system he

organized strikes and agitations47 . C.N.Annadurai, K.A.Mathiazhagan,

E.V.K.Sampath, V.R.Nedunchezhian and N.V.Natarajan of the DMK

organized picketing before the Chief Minister’s residence as a protest

against the new elementary education scheme. They launched an agitation to

stop trains in Tamilnadu on August 15, as a protest against the remarks of

the Prime Minister of India 48 .

45
. Ibid., p.291.
46
. M.L.A.Debates, Vol.XVI, 19 May 1954, p.429.
47
. The Hindu, 10 Jan. 1953, p.4.
48
. Ibid., 16 Aug. 1953, p.3.
 99

The DMK incited its members to offer obstruction to the Chief

Minister at his residence and stopped the train at Dalmiapuram. For the

reason, C.N.Annadurai and four others were arrested under sections 341

and 117 of Indian Penal Code and sections 108 and 128 of the Indian

Railways Act and sentenced them each to undergo imprisonment till the

rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each and in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months 49 . When Magistrate

M.A.Venkatramana Naidu was pronouncing the Judgement

finding the accused guilty of the offences with which they were

charged, J.S.Athanasius, Chief Assistant State Prosecutor intervened

and submitted that taking into consideration the nature and the

circumstances under which they were committed, the convicted

advocated only peaceful methods. At this stage K.Narayanaswami

Mudaliar, Defence Counsel said that in the best traditions of the

English Bar, a prosecutor never asked for a deterrent sentence. It was

left to the discretion of the Court. In the course of his order convicting

the accused, the Magistrate observed that the resolutions of the

Executive Committee of the DMK incited the men to offer

obstruction to the Chief Minister at his residence. It therefore

amounted to incitement to commit the offence of wrongful restraint 50 .

The establishment of a casteless society appeared a laudable aim.

It was extremely doubtful whether for attaining that aim the creation

49
. Ibid., 2 Oct. 1953, p.6.
50
. G.O. Ms. NO. 3325, Education, 30 Dec. 1953.
 100

of a sovereign democratic Dravidasthan, in a world which was

drifting to one, was either desirable. Any way Magistrate was not

concerned with the objectives of the DMK or with the ethics of the

action of its members 51 .

Rajaji’s new elementary education scheme was taken to debates in the

Legislative Assembly. He elaborated the significance of new elementary

education scheme in the midst of vehement political opposition. On grounds

of illness, Rajaji did not attend the Legislative Assembly on 25 March 1954;

but expressed his desire to resign the post of Chief Minister 52 . The decision

of C. Rajaji to relinquish office owing to ill-health was the subject matter of

comment in all sections of the press and there was a good deal of

speculation as to the shape and composition of the government which would

succeed him 53 . Official language formed another issue brought up in the

Legislative Assembly wherein the members demanded that Tamil should be

made the official language in Tamilnadu.

Tamil as the Official Language

M.P.Sivagnanam, a Tamil leader became the member of the

Legislative Council from 1952 to 1954. During this period Rajaji was the

Chief Minister. In the Legislative Council he stressed for the effective

implementation of prohibition.54 Sivagnanam also emphasized the

51
. The Hindu, 16 Mar. 1954, p.8.
52
. M.L.A .Debates, Vol.XVI, 1954, p.429.
53
. The Hindu, 10 Apr. 1954, p.13.
54
. M.L.C. Debates, Vol.II, 1952, p.445.
 101

importance of Tamil being the official language. In 1953 he spoke at the

Madras Legislative Council

official language of the State must be the language of the majority.

Only then the common man could understand the government

and live in equality. Tamil was to be the official language of

Tamilnadu. 55

V.V.Ramaswami, another member suggested the Legislative Assembly to

recommend to the President of India and to the Parliament for the early

formation of a Tamil State including therein all Tamil speaking areas from

Tirupathi in the North to Cape Comorin in the South. 56

The Andhra Province consisting of the Telugu areas of the Madras

State, the remaining areas of the undivided Province, including Madras city

comprised the new Madras State consisting of the following areas and

districts viz., Madras city, North Arcot, South Arcot, Bellary district,

Chingelput, South Kanara, Madurai, Malabar, The Nilgiris,

Ramanathapuram, Salem, Tanjore, Tiruchirappalli and Tirunelveli. Of these

excluding the Kannada speaking areas of the Bellary district viz., Siruguppa,

Bellary, Hospet, Hadgalli, Harpana hall and Kudligi taluks and Sandur and

the two districts of Malabar and South Kanara the rest would predominantly

of Tamil-speaking areas. Without the exclusion of the non-Tamil-speaking

areas, the residuary portion of the Madras State after the formation of the

55
. Ibid., Vol.V, 1953, p.113.
56
. Ibid., Vol.VI, 1953, p.430.
 102

Andhra State could not appropriately be termed as a Tamil State as required

by the resolution. 57

Agitation of the Tamils in respect of the border of the proposed

Andhra State aroused further jealously and hatred between the two

linguistic communities. It reached the climax at Tiruttani and on 3 July

1953, when M.P. Sivagnanam defied the order under section 144

Criminal Procedure Code. 58 Because of this agitation disturbances occurred

in the bilingual areas of Chittoor, Thiruvalangadu, Kalahasti, Nagari,

Puttoor and Tiruttani in the disputed district of Chittoor.59 After the

formation of Andhara State, tension began to prevail upon in the disputed

areas on 18 December 1953 60 . K.Vinayagam, a member of the Legislative

Assembly, who belonged to the disputed area of Tiruttani in Chittoor

District, informed in the House of the mounting tense situation in Tirupathi

due to the high-handed attitude of the Telugus towards the boundaries of

that State. 61

Birth of Andhra State

The linguistic reorganization of Madras Presidency came as a result

of economic, political and cultural necessities. The linguistic minorities of

Telugus and Keralites led them to seek cultural and political identify with

their fellow linguistic groups. They thought that a political identity for the

57
. G.O. Ms. No. 331, Public, 7 Feb. 1953.
58
. The Hindu, 5 July 1953, p.3.
59
. G.O. Ms. No.3204, Public, 12 Dec. 1953.
60
. The Hindu, 20 Dec. 1953, p.3.
61
. G.O. Ms. No.557, Public, 23 Feb. 1954.
 103

different people, speaking the identical languages was fundamental for their

political progress and cultural development. The Telugus wanted to have a

homogenous unity of same linguistic group to maintain identity over other

linguistic groups. During Rajaji’s period they were given Andhra State

which consisted of the undisputed Telugu areas of Madras State except the

Madras city. For long the Andhras had been associated with the imperial

traditions of Vijayanagar Empire. Under the impact of western learning a

strong desire for progress and development sprang amongst them. This led

to the starting of institutions to spread knowledge and culture among the

people and initiating efforts to improve the Telugu language and make it a

suitable medium of modern scientific learning. 62

The Telugu press influenced public opinion and stimulated a spirit of

union and co-operation. In regard to education, the Andhra areas were very

backward when compared with the Tamil areas in the Madras Presidency.

That was indicated by the comparatively less number of schools in the

Telugu speaking areas. There were 163 schools out of the total of 175 in the

Madras Presidency. The Telugu speaking people felt that the number of

schools for their pupils were very small and not in proportion of their

population. 63 In an attempt to redress their grievances in higher education,

the Andhras demanded the creation of a separate educational department

with a university for the Telugu districts. In trade and communication the

Telugus experienced difficulties for want of a good harbour and sufficient

62
. Maria John, B., Linguistic Reorganization of Madras Presidency, Nagercoil,1978,
p.16.
63
. G.O. Ms. No.457, Public, 16 Apr. 1914, p.3.
 104

railway lines. For long there was constructed no railway line in the circars,

namely the districts of Ganjam, Vizhagapatnam, Godavari, Krishna and

portion of Guntur. These inabilities affected the economic condition and

welfare of the Telugu districts.64

Among the linguistic groups in the Madras Presidency the Andhras

were the first to demand a separate province for them. The impact of

Western education and political institutions made the Andhras realize their

comparative backwardness. Social and cultural organizations came to be

formed and this trend contributed to the revival of their language and

culture. The holding of Andhra conferences and passing of resolutions

advocating a separate Andhra Province gained public support and

co-operation. The newspapers too wrote articles giving wide publicity.

During this time the demand for a university for Andhra coincided with the

demand for a province. As a result the Andhra separatist movement

assumed prominence.65

C.Rajaji, who was not favourably inclined towards the Andhra

Province, outwitted the Andhra members by making the Madras Legislature

pass a comprehensive resolution for the creation of Telugu, Tamil,

Malayalam and Kannada states. The Madras Government communicated the

resolution to the Government of India on 21 April 1938. 66 On 2 May the

British Government announced in the House of Commons that no new

provinces would be created. Many Andhras suspected that the British

64
. G.O. Ms. No.459, Public, 17 Apr. 1914.
65
. Ibid., p.31.
66
. Indian Express, 29 Apr. 1938, p.5.
 105

Governments’ attitude might have been influenced by Rajaji’s advice. The

Second World War broke out in September 1939 and due to this the issue of

Andhra Province once again got relegated to the background. 67

Many Andhra leaders like Prakasam and N.G.Ranga met Sardar Patel,

Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of India and

requested him to create the Andhra Province before drafting the new

constitution. Patel promised to consider its legal implication. The Andhra

Government had accepted the principle of linguistic provinces. The

Andhras felt that they had been losing much by their continued association

with other linguistic groups in the Madras Province. 68 When this issue was

pressed on him at the All India Congress Committee Session in April 1948,

it annoyed Nehru. On 17 June 1948 the President of the Constituent

Assembly appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission consisting of

S.K. Dar, a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court as Chairman,

Dr.Pananlal, I.C.S. and Jagat Narayana Lal, member of the Constituent

Assembly as members. It was also known as the Dar commission after the

name of its chairman. The Commission submitted its report on 10

December 1948. 69 The report of the Commission created such an uproar in

India especially in Andhra State that the Congress felt it prudent to assuage

the feelings of linguistic provinces. 70

67
. The Hindu, 5 Nov. 1939, p.7.
68
. The Hindu, 15 Apr. 1948, p.3.
69
. Ibid., 11 Dec. 1948, p.2.
70
. The Hindu, 30 Dec. 1948, p.2.
 106

On 16 June 1951 G. Sitarama Sastri, addressed letters to the

Government of Madras, the President of India, the Prime Minister and other

leaders, asking for an assurance before August that the Andhra State would

be formed. As Sitaram did not receive response from any quarter, he

announced his decision to go on a fast unto death from 10 August 1951 71 .

In conclusion he informed that in the event of the Government’s failure to

formation of Andhra State, there was no alternative for him, but to perform

satyagraha. The fast created a highly explosive situation in Andhra and led

to some untoward incidents. Sitaram ended his thirty five days fast on

20 September 1951. In this situation the first General Election of 1952 were

held 72 . During this time Potti Sriramulu, another leader began his fast

unto death on 19 October 1952 at Madras. On the night of 15 December,

the fifty eighth day of his fast, Sriramulu breathed his last. This news

shocked the people and disturbances on a large scale broke out on 16

December 73 . Mobs raided the Vijayawada Railway Station and locked

the wagons. Seven people were killed in police firings at different places.

The damage to railway property was estimated by the Government at

Rs. fifty lakhs 74 .

71
. Maria John, B., op.cit., p.44.
72
. The Hindu, 8 Nov. 1951, p.7.
73
. Ibid., 19 Dec. 1952, p.5
74
. Ibid. ,p.7
 107

The Hindu observed,

The Andhra State idea which was long been conceded in principle,

must respect his heroic self-sacrifice and the country owes it to the

memory of this remarkable man to see that nobody loses his

emotional balance at this juncture or indulges in intemperate acts

which might hold up progress towards the objective which he

cherished 75 .

On 19 December 1952 Nehru declared that the Government of India

decided to establish an Andhra State consisting of the Telugu-speaking areas

of the Madras State; but not including the city of Madras and that the

Government were appointing Justice K.N.Wanchoo, Chief Justice of

Rajastan High Court to consider and report on the financial and other

implications of this decision and the related questions of implementing it 76 .

C. Rajaji, Chief Minister of Madras said in a press interview that the

State Government would further proceed on the Prime Minister’s decision

on the formation of Andhra State as early as possible 77 . At the instructions

of the Government, Justice Wanchoo reached New Delhi on 30 December

1952 and held preliminary consultations with the Prime Minister and the

Home Minister. Accordingly Justice Wanchoo arrived at Madras on 7

January 1953 and received representations78 . On 19 January he went out on

a weeks tour of various places in Andhra region. After the tour he had

75
. The Hindu, 21 Dec. 1952, p.6.
76
. Indian Express, 20 Dec. 1952, p.4.
77
. The Hindu, 20 Dec. 1952, p.8.
78
. Ibid., 8 June 1953, p.2.
 108

further discussions for three days and concluded his enquiry on 29 January

1953. 79 After having analysed the claims and counter claims among other

things he submitted his report on 7 February 195380 . Regarding the

boundaries and the extent of the new State of Andhra, he included twelve

districts from the composite State of Madras viz., Srikakulam,

Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore,

Kurnool, Anantapur, Cuddappah, Chittoor and the taluks of Adoni, Alur and

Rayadurg of Bellary district. Of the seven remaining taluks of Bellary

district, all except Bellary taluk were included in Mysore State. Madras city

was to be a part of the Residuary State 81 .

The Governor was available at the spot for advice and guidance. If

the temporary capital remained in Madaras city, he was to live here for most

of the time and it was not a barrier to find a suitable residence for him there

in. In respect of the Public Service Commission, Wanchoo suggested to

establish a separate one for the new State from the very beginning. It was to

consist of a Chairman and two members as was in the composite State of

Madras with members from Andhra. It was shifted to Guntur, which could

conveniently accommodate its office 82 . Justice Wanchoo recommended that

at least five crores of rupees should be provided to the new State by the

Government of India either as a grant or as a loan, to enable the new

79
. Indian Express, 8 Feb. 1953, p.3.
80
. The Hindu, 8 Feb. 1953, p.3.
81
. Madras State Administration Report, 1952-53, pp.6- 7.
82
. M.L.A. Debates, Vol.IX, 1953. pp.1116-1117.
 109

Government to meet its expenditure at least for the first few months, as

otherwise it would be impossible for the new State to come into existence 83 .

T.Viswanathan and K.Krisna Rao supported the motion

recommending the introduction of the Andhra State Bill in Parliament.

K. Krishna Rao said that the formation of the Andhra State has been the

cherished dream of the people of Andhra Pradesh84 . P.S.Krishnasami

Ayyangar and V.R.Nagaraja of the Congress supported the introduction of

the Andhra State Bill in the House of Parliament. He said,

“the Andhra State Bill may find an easy and quick passage through

the House of Parliament so that the State may be set up on 1 October

1953 to satisfy the great aspirations of Andhra friends”85 .

The general desire on the part of the Andhras was to have it on the

Telugu New Year Day of 16 March 1953. Since the date was very near the

end of financial year, he suggested 1 April as the date besides giving a few

more choices of 1 July or 1 October or 1 January, so as to reduce the

accounting troubles considerably. Finally they agreed upon 1 October 1953

as the date on which the new State of Andhra was created 86 . But the

partition has brought in its train a number of problems for the two states.

N.Ranga Reddi, Dr.M.V.Krishna Rao, Dr.Nagan Gowda,

N.Sankara Reddi, S.B.P.Patabhirama Rao and D.Sanjeevayya resigned

their offices with effect from the forenoon of 1 October 1953, as a result

83
. Ibid., Vol.IX, 1953. p.243.
84
. Ibid., p.50.
85
. Ibid., p.61.
86
. Madras State Administration Report, 1952-53, p.78.
 110

of the formation of the new State for the Telugu area and the transfer

of certain areas to Mysore. The remaining ministers continued to hold

office and in addition to M.Bhaktavatsalam, K.Rajaram and

Srimati Jothi Venkatachalam were also sworn in as members of the Council

of Ministers with effect from the afternoon of 9 October 1953 87 .

The Congress Party appeared enthusiastic with the linguistic

re-organization of states; but after independence it found that the proposition

could create many issues. Yet the force of events led a reluctant

administration at the Centre to the implementation of the principle. The

claims and counter claims made by linguistic groups presented serious

problems to the administration in Madras and New Delhi 88 . Boundary

Commission was to be considered by both the governments concerned

immediately after the formation of the State of Andhra on 1 October 1953

and it was decided that the census of the disputed areas in the border district

should be sorted out and village wise linguistic data of the areas prepared

before the issue was pursued further. The Government of India was

therefore approached and it appointed J.I. Arputhanathan, Deputy Secretary

to the Government of Madras as the Superintendent of Census operation and

G. Bhimasankaran, a Deputy Collector of the Andhra State as the Deputy

Superintendent of Census operation for the collection of census particulars

of the border villages 89 .

87
. The Hindu, 10 Oct. 1953, p.5.
88
. Maria John, B., op.cit., p.127.
89
. The Hindu, 7 June 1954, p.7.
 111

Resignation of Rajaji Ministry

After the separation of Andhra State, contradictions and power

politics started between Rajaji and Kamaraj. Because of the Andhra

separation they demanded separate election for the Madras Legislative

Assembly. Rajaji wanted to know his leadership approval and for this

purpose he declared to call a meeting on 6 September 1953. After the

separation of Telugu areas, Rajaji discussed with Kamaraj who did not like

the new Ministers appointed and he mentioned that already Andhra was

separated and had nine Ministers and questioned the need of new Ministers.

The suggestions of Kamaraj was not accepted by Rajaji. Rajaji and Kamaraj

wrote their opinion to Central Government. Because of Rajaji’s political

clout, Central Government gave permission to appoint three ministers and it

raised the number of Ministers into twelve 90 .

Another reason of downfall of Rajaji Ministry was the introduction of

new elementary education scheme. He did not consult the Congress

Committee and other Ministers on this vital issue. This paved the way for

new political opposition. Because of his occupation based educational

system, his administrative tenure became unpopular leading to

agitations 91 . The D.M.K. Party decided to move no-confidence motion

against Rajaji and got majority support also. Rajaji tried a lot to get

through confidence motion; but he met with failure in his attempt. At this

90
. Muruga Thanuskodi, Kamaraj Oru Saritiram,(Tamil), Madras, 1975, pp.145-146.
91
. Tamilnadu Sattamantra Povalvila Sattamantra Peravai Vairavila, 1997,
Chennai, p.212.
 112

situation, Central Government called Kamaraj and Rajaji for peace talk.

Then Nehru declared to continue Rajaji as Chief Minister. After that

D.G. Krishnamoorthy, Panjatcharam Chettiar and A.M. Sambandam went to

Delhi to talk the real situation of Tamilnadu and they submitted a

Commission Report. After hearing the Commission’s Report Nehru said,

“you have the right to take any decision in our Government”.

The Congress Legislative Assembly met on 6 January 195492 .

Rajaji’s new elementary education was opposed in the Legislative

Assembly. Due to this development on grounds of illness Rajaji

relinquished Chief Ministership on 13 April 1954 93 . After the Budget

meeting, election was conducted for electing the Party leader. During the

Congress Legislature Party meeting, when Rajaji proposed Subramaniyam

as Chief Minister, Kamaraj expressed his idea to accept the proposal only

for two months. But Rajaji did not accept this which generated strong

opposition. Congress Legislative Assembly members wanted to conduct

election. The colleagues of Kamaraj pressurized him to take over as leader

of Congress Legislature Party. Accordingly at the election conducted on

13 April 1954, Kamaraj got ninety three votes and C. Subramaniam got

forty nine votes. The former popular leader assumed the position as Chief

Minister on 13 April 1954 94 .

92
. The Hindu, 8 Jan. 1954, p.3.
93
. Ibid., 14 Apr. 1954, p.2.
94
. Ibid., p.1.
 113

The intellectual caliber and diplomacy in policies did not save Rajaji

for continuing as Chief Minister. The awakening of the people and their

expectations for more socio-economic enlistment and vehement criticism of

regime paved the way for the downfall of Rajaji Ministry and ushered

in a new regime under the dynamic leadership of K. Kamaraj.

Rajaji’s period of Chief Ministership, which started in 1952 and culminated

in 1954 owing to this resignation, can be said as a period of controversial

policies. The two year period of Rajaji witnessed all India and regional

issues of grater magnitude. As a conservative member representing the elite

Brahmin class he wished to uphold Hindu traditional values as a fulfillment

of the sprit of ancient Vedic literature. He thought that the ignorance and

illiteracy of masses would enable him to introduce his new education policy

without opposition. However, Periyar E.V.Ramasami, as crusader against

social evils and traditional practices and the rise of D.M.K. Party with

similar ideas and goals created uproar against Rajaji’s wishes. On the other

side, as a shrewd political leader, Kamaraj utilised the occasion to

strengthen Congress Party on popular basis. On the one side, the popular

clout of Kamaraj replaced Rajaji as a leader and on the other it delayed the

political consolidation of the D.M.K. as a Party.