Nizam Telangana State Demand is NOT Over 50 Years Old

Separatist leaders and intellectuals often claim that people’s desire for a separate Nizam Telangana state is over 50 years. These claims being made by the separatists are untrue. To the contrary, it is the vast majority of Telugu people’s desire for Vishalandhra that is over 50 years old.


The movement for a Telugu state started in 1903-04 with the formation of Young Men’s Literary Association in Guntur. This association developed a map of Andhradesa that included Telugu-speaking provinces of Madras Presidency, Central Provinces, Nizam dominions, and the Mysore state.


In 1912, when Congress Party leaders held their 21st Krishna-Guntur district conference, members of the literary association proposed: “…to agitate first for the formation of a province for the Andhras comprising the coastal and Ceded districts and that later they could add the five contiguous eastern Telugu districts in the Nizam’s dominions and the Telugu-speaking areas in the Central Provinces.”


As a result of these efforts, the “Father of the Andhra Movement” Sri Konda Venkatapayya undertook the task of leading the movement for a separate state. Andhra Mahasabha was born as a result of these grassroots efforts. The organization held its first meeting in Bapatla in 1913. In addition to 2000 visitors, 800 delegates from Kosta, Seema, Nagpur, Warangal, and Hyderabad attended the conference.


The struggle for a Telugu state went on for a couple of decades. The organization was able to convince Gandhiji to agree in principle to the formation of a Telugu state. They even sent delegations to London to make a case for Telugu province.


In March 1936, on Ugadi, Vishalandhra proponents carried a map of Andhrarashtramu in a procession through the streets of Bezawada. The map consisted of the Telugu-speaking areas of the Madras presidency, Orissa, Mysore, and Hyderabad. Hundreds of people gathered on the banks of the Krishna River and took a pledge to achieve an Andhra province.


Sataavadhaanulu Srinivasa Sodarulu compiled a book titled “Andhra Raashtramu” in 1940. Given below are a couple of poems from 1940, 16 years before a united Telugu state formed. The writers’ affinity for Telugus living in all the regions, including the Madras presidency, Hyderabad state, and Orissa, becomes clear from these poems.


After India achieved independence there was intense lobbying by Telugus for an Andhra state. Government appointed Dar commission to sort out the issue and it recommended against linguistic provinces.


On August 15, 1949, Father of the Andhra Movement, Konda Venkatapayya died without realizing his dream for a Telugu state.


Then the JVP committee was formed- made up of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel, and Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. These efforts failed too, as the issue of Madras became contentious. Telugus claimed their right to Madras city as it historically belonged to them and the region was given to the British by the erstwhile Vijayanagara kings who ruled from Chandragiri after the empire’s downfall.


In January 1950, APCC general body met at Madras and passed a resolution demanding Madras be the temporary capital of Andhra province and upon creation of Vishalandhra, Hyderabad become the permanent capital.


Swami Sitaram, a Congress Party worker who became a Saadhu, took up the cause that Venkatapayya fought for decades. He started his fast unto death on August 16, 1951. 35 days into Swami Sitaram’s fast, Vinoba Bhave intervened and convinced Sitaram to give up his fast and promised to reason with Nehru. However, Bhave failed to impress upon Nehru for the formation of a Telugu state.


Potti Sriramulu consulted Swami Sitaram and obtained permission to start his fast until death. After 57 days of fasting Potti Sriramulu passed away. Following Amarajeevi’s death there was widespread violence and Nehru agreed to the formation of the Andhra state. Telugus' claim to Madras was denied by Nehru, given Rajaji’s intense lobbying.


Telangana separatists often cite an article written by Sri M. Narayan Reddy, former M.P. from Nizamabad where he referenced Potti Sriramulu’s letters about the status of Madras and claims that Potti Sriramulu fast was just to win Madras for Telugus.


Yes, Madras was a contentious issue at that time. However, Sri Narayan Reddy looked through a narrow prism to reach his conclusions. He ignored 50 years of Telugus’ struggles for a state, which culminated in the death of Potti Sriramulu.


Now, let’s switch gears and quickly look at Nizam Telangana.


Peasants of Nizam Telangana rose up against the feudal system and shook up the foundation of the Hyderabad state. Following Police Action initiated by the Indian government, Hyderabad state became free of Nizam’s atrocious rule.


Nehru publicly expressed disinterest for Vishalandhra accusing Telugus of having imperialistic tendencies. He appointed Fazal Ali commission to make a recommendation on the future of Hyderabad state’s constitution. As expected, Fazal Ali toed Nehru’s line and recommended keeping Nizam Telangana region as a separate state for 5 years.


The elected representatives of the Nizam Telangana region rose up against the irrational recommendation made by Fazal Ali. Legislators of the Hyderabad state met and debated the issue for a week in the Assembly. Under the leadership of Burugula Ramakrishna Rao, they discussed a resolution favoring the creation of Vishalandhra. Out of 174 representatives in the Assembly, 103 favored Vishalandhra, 29 favored a Telangana state, whereas 15 remained neutral. If one just takes people’s representatives from the Nizam Telangana region, 59 favored Vishalandhra, whereas 25 favored Telangana, and 1 remained neutral.


Clearly, there is overwhelming evidence that Telugus across Nizam, Kosta, and Seema wanted to be part of Andhra Pradesh. This desire existed ever since the Young Men’s Literary Association was formed in A.D. 1904. At the time of the formation of Andhra Pradesh state an overwhelming 70% of the people’s representatives from Nizam Telangana supported Vishalandhra.


So, how can the separatists claim that Telugu people from the Nizam region wanted a separate state for over 50 years?





Save Andhra Pradesh!


Nalamotu Chakravarthy

Tags: , , , , , ,

57 Responses to “Nizam Telangana State Demand is NOT Over 50 Years Old”

  1. praveen says:

    30% of Telangana representatives were against united A.P since formation. Currently these 30% people are influencing rest of 70% by inventing new race, new mother.
    Equation is quickly turning into more than 70% are against united A.P. It is sad to see how people forget their own identity after few hundereds of years of Nizam's rule. Telugu = Andhra and people of Telangana are Andhras.
    Blame should be on all the politicians (MLAs, MPs from Telangana region for neglecting their responsibilities, power hungry RayalaSeema/Coastal leaders for hanging onto CM seat.)
    Democracy is turning into Moneycracy. Money gives power, power gives more money. This will be true even after Telangana is formed.
    Disintegration of Telugus will just be the beginning of the end.

    • ANAND says:

      telangana bidda kallu teruchuko
      seemandradu samkya andra antu natakalu aduthunnadu
      nee udyagala kosam, nee bhumi ni kabalinchadam kosam
      telangana bidda jago, andhra valekho bagavo
      jai telangana

      • Andhra Student says:

        Vidipoyi nuvvu sadhinchedi yemi ledu bidda. Ippudina appudina ne nayakule ninnu mosam chesedi. Pichhi vaada. Kalisuntene kaladu sukham.
        ayina bago andhra vala antunnave ippude. repu oka vela vidipoyaka meru andhra vallani anna-tammudu la yela chustharu ra. Hyderabad is a joint property. So it should be joint capital FOREVER. THATS ALL.  Ayina Telangana yenduku asalu. Oh meru develop avvaledantava. Ithe development avvani areas anni kalipi oka state chesloni teskondi. but NOT HYDERABAD. Prati andhra vadi kaya kastam yedo oka rupam lo pettu badi pedithe ippudu adi ila create ayyindi.
        Dont  blame andhra people, first blame your leaders to not to develop your areas and ask them to "bago telangana leaders". Then only you people will know the POWER OF ANDHRA.

  2. eeswar says:

    Dear Sir,
    thanks a lot for all your articles and efforts…

  3. Sampath says:

    Chakravarthy Garu
    1. Why it is so clearly mentioned in AP website, how can you accuse Narayana Reddy. 
    2.In January 1950, APCC general body met at Madras and passed a resolution demanding Madras be the temporary capital of Andhra province and upon creation of Vishalandhra, Hyderabad become the permanent capital.
    What is APCC? Interesting that Andhra Pradesh congress comittee existed 6 years before andhra pradesh was formed. You need to give a source for this. Because if this was true, then this would be definetly be Andhra Pradesh Govt official website.
    3. Why do you miss out on the letter written by Burgulla Ramakrishna Rao to PM Nehru, were he clearly explains the situation in hyderabad.
    4.Telugus claimed their right to Madras city as it historically belonged to them and the region was given to the British by the erstwhile Vijayanagara kings who ruled from Chandragiri after the empire’s downfall.
    Just becuase some hundred years back some one ruled one and place and someone established some city, it does not mean it belongs to the progeny's of those someone. Going by your logic, America should always be a black state, Delhi should be given to muslims. 
    Madras city at the time of seperation on Andhra has 40% telugus and the govt was dominated by tamilians. Hence both people (andhra's and tamil's ) had equal right on that city. but because Rajagopalachari was close to nehru, Andhra's never got madras.
    5. Again your article never says and infact no article can ever justify that Mr Sriramulu has ever said anything about telugu's in hyderabad. You just take it for granted that he faught for visalandhra, were infact he has faught for madras. sriramulu was a madrasi to the core. No one can deny this. You never talk of attitude of prakasham pantulu an d Sanjeev Reddy.
    6. No one has ever denied, that andhra masabha has played an important role in Peasant movement in hyderabad or some people were propogating Visalandhra, but this was never supported by big leaders. hence it never gained momentum till 1953.
     I thought you were a learned man, this article clearly shows your chavinistic attitude sir, You only mention things supporting your argument conviniently neglecting others. I am sorry about this, but there is no need take your arguments seriously

  4. Kishore says:

    Mr Chakravarthy,
    You you mention incidents from history that favour your agruments. You never mention all facts. Hence, there is no need to take you seriously.

  5. Raaghav says:

    There seems to be a some mis information in what you have written.
    1. When APCC which had stalwarts like sanjeev reddy, VV Giri, T Prakasham agreed for making hyderabad as a capital state on visalandhra, then why would these same leaders propose to make Bellary the capital of andhra state, These were the same leaders who offered Subhramanyam a deputy chief minister if he agreed for bellary to join andhra. 
    2.  As expected, Fazal Ali toed Nehru’s line and recommended keeping Nizam Telangana region as a separate state for 5 years.
    I dont agree with this statement, Fazal Ali commission, said some portions of bellary to merged with andhra, which nehru denied, then how come can they toe with nehru's argument. Please read the link below.
    This link prooves beyond doubt that you are using (creating, manipulating) historical incidents to strenghthen your case, this is unfair and not expected from a person of your stature.

    • AMRAO says:

      Mr. Raaghav,
      1) The link does not prove any thing. It appears that Dr. Sheshadri, in his eagerness to highlight the greatness of Sri Subrahmanyam, added his own "masala" to the story. It is possible that these leaders offerred Sri Subrahmanyam the post of Deputy Chief Minister but to say that they promised to make Bellary the capital of the new state is unbelievable.
      2) What was Nehru's line? Nehru strongly believed that formation of new states on linguistic lines could work against national integration and divide people. This is a fact and can be verified easily. At that time, Telugus not only demanded separation from Madras Presidency, they also demanded inclusion of Telengana areas into the new state. This made him even more angry and he expressed his displeasure by saying the demand is a "tint of expansionist imperialism".
      3) Please do not pick up bits and pieces and make a big deal out of small issues. If you look at the comments in this page, you will see what I am saying. Some one says how could there be APCC before the formation of AP? Some one else does not have the patience to read the numbers correctly but writes a comment. Some one simply says the author is not writing facts but does not bother to write where the author has erred.

      • Kishore says:

        but to say that they promised to make Bellary the capital of the new state is unbelievable
        The big andhra leaders had that attitude then which led nehru to say what he said. Infact that attitude of andhra leaders continued and is reason for this telangana movement.
        You people should realise that this situation today is not because of KCR but because of andhra leaders who made alliance with him. You people first criticize them. Cunning leaders of seemandhra are reason for this situation.

  6. Rajashekar says:

    Mr Chakravarthy,
    There are conflicting statements in your post, you mention out of 59 legislators (only) 25 legislators very against vishalandra, which is clearly above 40% of legislators, then in closing remarks you mention 70% of legislators supported vishanlandhra.  
    Remember that 40%, vishalandra did not have 2/3rd support. 2/3rd majority has a lot of significance in parlimentory norms.
    You seem to be using word overwhelming word very genrously.  Overwhelming means so great as to tender opposition useless,  this is clearly not the case above. You should also remember, which you did not mention in the post above that hyderabad assembly adjourned without taking a vote on SRC recommendations, although majority members were in favour of it. This led to postponment of decision by central govt.
    This clearly shows that a  fair number of people in telangana wanted to have state of their own prior to formation of AP. This number has grown over the years and today it stands at above 90% which can be "rightfully" termed overwhelming. Hence the fight for telangana state, is more than 50 years old. this is inherently mentioned in your post above. 

    • Chakravarthy says:

      59 favored Vishalandhra, 25 were against, and 1 neutral
      59.5*100 / (59.5+25.5) = 70%

      • Kishore says:

        Even 70% is no where near being overwhelming. Infact that 30% against prooves that the telangana state demand was over 50 years old. Today that number stands at more than 95%. I am sure chakravarthy garu will not agree with this.

        • Vikram says:

          Kishore Garu,
          Please understand the basic logic here. Hyderabad state was already formed with the current districts in Telangana by 1953, at the time when Coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema regions were still trying to form a new Andhra state( current Andhra pradesh was formed in 1956). At this point why would a already formed state even try to join this United Andhra state movement. If there was so much disinterest within the state itself why did they try pass a resolution in the assembly house or even try to gain support to join Visalandhra? They could have been calm like any other neighbouring state Karnataka or Maharastra for example. Who asked them to join this movement at all in the first place?
          It is all because Telangana, Coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema were all one region in history and it is this penchanted affection and interest in telugus that wanted us back to be united, be it from Telangana region or andhra or rayalaseema.But, understand the fact that Telangana region offered themselves to join in unity and not by force. Can you force Maharastra to merge with AP? same applies with hyderabad state,No one would have even touched hyderabad state if your majority was just interested in reamaining seaprate. though we have a sense of united and still wish to be united, the fact is that Hyderabad state was already formed by the time AP.
          Please dont get swayed away by the injustification painted with emotions about your region. Understand the ground realities, look for the regions situation at the time of 1956 and now in 2010 you will get the best picture, United we prevail, Let's not repeat the same old story by remaining as princely states which made us vulnerable to the easy foriegn attacks in history.  Mistakes might have happened but definitely resolvable. Let's put the same fight towards achieving progress.

        • ANAND says:

          100 % wrong information by Mr.Chakravarthy, hyderabad state assembly never conducted voting in assembly, please check the asssmbly records

  7. ved says:

    Chakrawarthy garu,
    Thanks for the replies. I'm glad, at least now they are asking questions and finding the answers from people like you. Had they demanded same proofs from Prof Jaya Shankar, things would not have precipitated this low. 
    Sampath gaaru,
    You said
    'Just becuase some hundred years back some one ruled one and place and someone established some city, it does not mean it belongs to the progeny's of those someone. Going by your logic, America should always be a black state, Delhi should be given to muslims. 
    Madras city at the time of seperation on Andhra has 40% telugus and the govt was dominated by tamilians. Hence both people (andhra's and tamil's ) had equal right on that city. but because Rajagopalachari was close to nehru, Andhra's never got madras.
    Are you implying that god forbid if the split happens, that Hyderabad need not be part of Telangana for the reasons you stated.  Can Telangana survive without the Golden Goose (Hyderabad)?
    As far as big leaders, there were no big leaders in Telangana under Nizam rule except under Andhra Mahasabha and to some extent under Arya Samaj.  Later the hard liners of andhra maha sabha transformed into communist party of India.  The genesis of separate Telangana movement was created by none other than Nehru, as he was afraid of non existent Telugu imperialism. Had he not done that, there would have been no separatism in Andhra Pradesh and its progress would have been even more spectacular. He grudgingly fell in line with SRC recommendation and the overwhelming desire of Telugu speaking people. But with his infinite wisdom he created bunch of opportunists to plague India internally, as he has done externally with Kashmir. That is the fate of  Andhra Pradesh and India.

  8. Chandra says:

    I pity to see brainwashed Telangana supporters slowly loosing commonsense.

    Mahatmagandhi fought against Britishers and may not be against Nizam of Hyderabad per se.  But , that does not mean Telangana region people need not adore him, as he did not bring Telangana people  out of oppressors. His fight had a clear desire to provide freedom for indians.
    Similarly, Potti sriraamulu effort was aimed at bringing an identity for telugus in india. Indirectly it includes Telugus staying in all three regions.

  9. Mohan says:

    I could not directly reply to the reply by Raghava, I am sure he can see this. You mentioned that SRC did not recommend Bellary to join Andhra. I hope you read the article you just linked, which states the following:
    Later, the States Re-Organization Committee (SRC) headed by Justice Fazal Ali submitted its report to Union Government in 1956 that Siruguppa, Bellary and Hospet taluks and portion of Mallapuram sub-taluk should be transferred to Andhra State. The SRC recommendations triggered widespread agitations throughout Mysore State.
    Re: Your point #1 in which you said Chakravarthy is manipulating or misinforming about leaving Telangana as a separate state for 5-year is sheer nonsense. Articles 386 and 387 of SRC:
    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, if for the present, the 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.
    Your assertion that Chakravarthy is essentially 'lying' is fairly typical of any true-believer who is oblivious to any facts. For that matter, you even failed to read carefully the article you yourself linked. FYI, that article appeared in Hindu is legitimate in terms of historic facts, but you should note that it is also an OPINION piece.
    For many years many hate-filled sites have spread enough misinformation and hate already. It is high time for the real facts to come out. Those who have fact should disseminate them to educate the ignorant and the brainwashed. I have FULL confidence in the information Chakravarthy is providing. unlike the hate-mongers like KCR, Kodandaram, the other TRS and JAC leadership, Chakravarthy does not have any agenda or anything to gain by standing up for what he believes in. As far as I can help, I will not let his credibility be attacked by the ill-informed and brainwashed.
    -Save Andhra Pradesh!
    -Reject hate and hatemongers!

    • Raaghav says:

      Mr Mohan
      I have never said that SRC did not recommend bellary to joined in Andhra, on the contrary i have said
      Fazal Ali commission, said some portions of bellary to merged with andhra, which nehru denied, then how come can they toe with nehru's argument 
      I wanted to say that Fazal did not toe with nehru argument as blogger has written. There are reason why nehru, said andhras demand "tint with imperialistic expansion" The begaviour of leaders with respect to bellary and telangana made him say this. On the contrary, if telangana people willing wanted to join andhra, as this blogger writes then nehru would never havew said that.
      We say this blogger has agenda, because he projecting history to stregthen his point and avoinding some facts in history. For him Nehru is bad and indira gandhi is good, Narayana reddy who writes facts that are in AP Govt official website looks through narrow prism.
      He writing seems like he is the only person who  look s at things  in totality. He writes telangana people to be gullible, Hence we say there is no need to take this blogger seriously.

  10. Mohan says:

    Ved garu:
    Re Nehru, his belief was the dividing states on linguistic basis will be the first step towards disintegration of the Union. His fear was genuine. He feared that India will turn into something like Europe where member countries were divided on language and culture. He believed that this division eventually led to the rise of Hitler.
    Nehru was a thinker but never a leadership material. When Sriramulu died, it hurt him personally and he was demonized by many. It was hard for him to take the criticism personally. This 'personal' vendetta may have turned into an imaginary Telugu imperialism in his mind.
    Furthermore, the separatist elements love to cite the infamous 'innocent bride' comment made by Nehru in Nizamabad. They claim that it was a visionary statement. Is Nehru a  leader? A visionary? You decide by taking these facts into account.
    1)  Having come from Kashmir and being a Pandit his actions left Kashmir in a chaotic state that it is today. Had it not for his terrible judgment in agreeing to Article 370 of accession, Kashmir would have been an integral part of India today. Look at the plight of Kashmiri Pandits today. They are paying for the utter incompetence of Nehru. I read reports that some of the previously well-to-do Pandits had to flee Kashmir and live like beggars in the streets of Pune.
    2) Had it not been for the intervention by Patel, what was Nehru's plan in dealing with the Nizam? Appeasement?
    3) Ah! Arunachal Pradesh!
    So much for leadership, and vision!! Nehru to me is an utterly incompetent and failed prime minister. His daughter was a true leader. but she spent too much time consolidating her power and destabilizing the opposition than doing good to the people.
    As far as the Telangana separatists are concerned, somehow Nehru's senseless words are connecting better than facts. Also connecting well with them are hate-filled rhetoric by TRS and JAC goons, whom they call 'intellectuals.'

    • Raghuram says:

      For Mohan, seemandhra leaders who for votes gave support to KCR are great. They are real culprits but he will never accept it. He also has that cunning andhra attitude. Tamil hate these people, Telangana hate them, Kannadigas hate them, still they will not change, They want the world to hate them,. That is why people like mohan write all such things which makes no sense.

      • chandra says:

        Are you from one among those hate mongers of TDF gang. We dont want you people in India, especially in Telangana. I am also from telangana districts.
        This blog has some meaningful debates from both sides. Not for spreading abuse or hatred. 

  11. Sreekanth says:

    You you mention incidents from history that favour your agruments.
    If that's true. then the same is true in case of separatists.

    Mr.Chakravarthy thanks for your post's.

  12. AMRAO says:

    Well, I am reminded of God Father's famous words "I can not reason with him any more!". —-  "Andhras are cunning", "Andhras forced Nehru into forming Andhra Pradesh against the wishes of Telengana people", "Even if 30% of the people are against, it means the demand is over 50 years old".  —- They simply refuse to go beyond their brain washed thoughts. No amount of reasoning seems to appeal to them. It looks to me that a systematic propaganda has been spread over a period of time. This propaganda has been targeted at students of all universities in the Telengana area. I also think the techniques used by Maoists, to influence young people and invite them to join their movement, were used in this propaganda. Just like Maoists who eliminated any one who did not agree with their views, any one from Telengana who is willing to come forward and talk sense is forced to shut up. I request you all to read these two items.
    1) 2)
    Finally, I want to hang up as it is not taking me any where. But before I go, I want to express my sincere thanks and congratulations to Mr. Chakravarthy for writing the book. I am sure his intent is to raise awareness rather than commercial interests. I also believe he has put himself and the contents of the book for scrutiny. I believe the book or excerpts of the book should be presented to the Sri Krishna comittee. I had worked in the US for many years, acquired a green card but returned to India for family reasons. My daughter, aged 5, attends a school inside the OU campus and one day, she started crying about this whole issue. This made me come to this forum and understand the issues. India is making long strides on many fronts but certainly going back to dark ages due to the division of people in the name of religion, region, caste, etc… There about 1.5 crore people in the US without jobs right now. Imagine what happens if politicians there start blaming immigrants especially Indians for all their miseries. I hope and pray that wisdom prevails on every one and peace will be restored paving the way for development of every Indian.

    • prabhakar says:

      Yes! That's it.
      I would like correct one thing. We are not discussing with brain-washed. But the brain washers themselves. 
      These are Bush and Powell not Blair and Jack Straw (of Iraq war preparation). 

  13. Vani says:

    Dear Mr. Chakravarthy,
    As per your article, I understood that you wrote all in favourism of your ideas only. You didn't care to write the other side of the coin.
    Can you answer these questions?
    1. When Whole India got Independence and Nizam's state was under the rule of Nizams, did Andhra people care for their independence? – NO!!!
    2. When Andhra was fighting for its own independence from Madras Province, did Telangana people help them? – NO!!
    If you want to know the facts, be one of the people who are victims. Living getting all facilities will not make you a Leader.

    • Chakravarthy says:

      Vani garu,
      1) Yes. Puchalapalli Sundarayya is from Kosta. When Nizam Andhra Mahasabha was banned, it operated from Vijayawada. Raavi Narayan Reddi himself participated in fund raising activities in Kosta. After his speeches describing Nizam's atrocities, women used to donate their jewelry right there in his meetings.
      2) Telugu people living under Nizam's tyrannical rule didn't have as much liberty as those living under British rule did. Despite it, telugus from Nizam area have participated in AMS and other activities in the kosta region.
      There was a healthy relationship between the leaders of the two regions, till separatism raised its ugly head in 1956.

      • Rajesh says:

        Mrs Vani asks some specific questions, and the response from the author is very twisted as in his post. Why cant you answer be direct?
        Here are answer's for your questions.
        1. Yes, some Andhra people in form Andhra Mahasabha Cared for independece from Nizam Tyranny. But they were few and far, not majority as this author states.
        2. No: Telangana people never participated when andhra was asking for seperate state. This is clearly eveident from 1948, when hyd got independence, there were not many agitations for Vishalandra. Andhra Mahasabha carried out agitations but they were few and far between. Infact, if truth be told, In the words of the then MP from hyderabad, Telangana people were treated badly by some andhra beaurocrats.
        But, if you ask this author he will twist and say, then andhra beaurocrats treated them like brothers etc.

  14. srikanth says:

    people r calling telangana people as seperatists.. same applies to poti sreeramulu adn andhra people who fought for seperate andhra state.. bloody hypocrites…if fighting for telangana is seperatism then fighting for andhra state was also seperatism

  15. Kalyan Yalamanchili says:

    Hi Brother…….Hatsoff for the work you done and data you presented. This is by par the best till date to be done. Atleast by seeing and reading these data atleast some Nizam Telagana supporters should shut their mouth.
    Once again Hatsoff and GR8 work.

  16. mgvlaxman says:

    TG want entire TG peaple. nothing historys.all are chances gone.only balance revolution on andras leaders. this time my be not giving telangana state. telangana peaple fight and through out our aria of TG. who were not went to andhra those are bareed beneath golconda fort compalsory.

  17. Prakash says:

    Mr. Nalamotu, you mention "Out of 174 representatives in the Assembly, 103 favored Vishalandhra, 29 favored a Telangana state, whereas 15 remained neutral. If one just takes people’s representatives from the Nizam Telangana region, 59 favored Vishalandhra, whereas 25 favored Telangana, and 1 remained neutral."
    I am certain no records of voting exist but we can safely assume that Communists went all out in favor of Vishalandhra. As I remember PDF (CPI was banned but contested in the name of PDF) won ~ 42 seats in the Telangana districts. Among Congress Telangana MLAs the ratio of pro/anti-Vishalandhra is therefore 17/25. This assumes great significance considering that CPI was nearly wiped out in 1957, barely one year later.

    The date of the Hyderabad assembly resolution assumes great significance in view of the gentlemen's agreement and the two resolutions in the Andhra assembly (promising proportionate Govt. employment). This is akin to "contract under inducement".
    Finally why did the whole assembly vote on the resolution? It appears that 44 non-Telangana MLAs supported the resolution while just 4 opposed it. This leads me to suspect the language was not restricted to Vishalandhra alone.

  18. Prakash says:

    Mr. Nalamotu, a supplementary to the above question. By your count, it appears 27 MLAs (~ 15%) were not present during the division. Fazal Ali refers to "two thirds majority the legislatur" rather than "two thirds majority the legislature present & voting". The above division does not meet this criterion.
    I realize the report (like all others) was non-binding. I further realize the comparison is not apt as Fazal Ali in any case recommended the matter to be taken up after the third general election. I must add I have no way of verifying the numbers cited by you. The questions however assume importance only to the extent of the claim by united state advocates (e.g. Mr. Undavalli) claim this closes the "Fazal Ali gap".

  19. Prakash says:

    Chandra, thanks a lot for the link. I can not review Bhavana Mishra's bibliography though. Based on this, I can conclude her book is a source, not a verification mechanism.

    One problem with desk research relates to using "secondary sources" e.g. Mishra citing someone else. The principle serious scholars adopt in such case is to go to the "original source".
    For instance, I can "disprove" Nalamoth's contention by quoting Mishra's statement (page 203) that the Telangana state demand was heard the first time in October 1953. (2010/07-1953/10 > 50 years, QED!)
    Mishra's contention in this chapter is that the "union" overrode local concerns ("its leadership had to bow to the wishes of the center" i.e. the hegemony of the center). This appears to fit the thrust of her book ("union" vs. states, federalism in modern India etc.) well. If the division numbers are inacurate, her claims are still not repudiated. Nalamothu (who uses Mishra as a source but supports an opposite perspective) would however be in a serious quandry if this is the case.
    My questions to the blogger remain pertinent as I had assumed that his division is correct (for the purpose of argument). I look forward to his answers.

    • Chandra says:

      I agree with you regarding the primary source point. I think major libraries in India have archives of news papers and they would be the best sources for understanding the past. Mr Nalamotu in his book used old news papers extensively in quoting the referances. He did not use the book which i pointed out to you. Hope SKC is going through primary sources.
      Reg page 203, Mr Nalamotu infact mentions exactly the same thing in his book. A week after Nehru said about imperialism, in 1953 separate Telangana demand started. What Mr Nalamotu  means by the title of this post is, that issue was resolved by the opinion of memebrs of Hyd state assembly. So the demand has not been hanging for 50 years as it was resolved.
      In fact  Marri chenna reddy, during that time  propsed some novel concepts such as Telangana and some part of karnataka to be formed as a state. Based upon such concepts we can not say such a new demand is also 50 year old!!! and should be considered now!!. 

      • Chakravarthy says:

        The source I relied on is K.V.N. Rao, The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh. Given the critical nature of this information, I went to the State Assembly library during my India trip. I approached the librarian for session recordings from 1953, and he said the official records of that session have somehow disappeared mysteriously. So, the evidence officially has been destroyed and we only can rely on secondary sources. However, we have enough supporting evidence in the form of Burgula speech and other member speeches in support of Samaikya Andhra. Hope that helps.
        As far as the other comment about communists playing a major role in the vote. I am not sure if it matters, as long as it is the elected representatives who made their preference known. Also, 2/3rd majority usually would indicate members present on the floor. i don't know if you can force the members to be on the floor of the Assembly. We may be splitting hairs at this point :-)

  20. Prakash says:

    Mr. Nalamotu, thanks a lot for the response. The difference between "two thirds majority of the legislature" as opposed to "two thirds majority the legislature present & voting" in constiuitional matters is actually significant but possibly does not matter in the present case as commission reports & assembly resolutions are non-binding.
    Does KVN Rao provide either the language of the resolution or party/region wise breakup please? Another question that no one has answered so far is the chronology of the Hyderabad resolution, the two Andhra resolutions & the gentlemen's agreement as well as the links between these events.
    A contention that "only 59 of 101 Telangana members supported Vishalandhra. This group was dominated by the members of the then banned communist party. Out of the 59 non-comunist MLAs, a mere 17 voted for Vishalandhra, 25 opposed it and others did not vote" can not be repudiated by the information provided by you so far.

    • Chakravarthy says:

      I don't recall KVN Rao providing party/region wise breakup. I will double-check.
      I am sorry, but I am not ready to subscribe to the notion that all members who are not in attendance during the Assembly session opposed unification and somehow we need to take their vote as a "no". I am also a little baffled with the logic that communist legislatures vote is less relevant. In the Nizam region, it is the Communists and the Andhra Mahasabha that fought for the peasants and not the Congress. Somehow, the Congress legislatures' vote carries more weight?
      In fact, I have met Communists who argue that the Gentlemen's agreement is irrelevant as it is an agreement between Congress party leaders and it has no legal binding whatsoever. Elected legislatures did not have a say in the agreement reached between the Congress party leaders.

      • Prakash says:

        Mr. Nalamotu, when you check KVN Rao please do look for chronology of the four major events also, thanks.
        the principle of "absolute" percents is much more common in constitutional law & parliamentary procedures than you ay imagine. To the extent I know, the term "majority" is categorized 3 ways by percentage & 4 ways by total count. In your own country, for example, senate clotures require three-fifths majority on a total strength basis. This is why both parties clambered for the magic number of 60 in the last election and DINO Lieberman is tolerated in the caucus. Fazal Ali as a jurist would know (and possibly Mr. Undavalli does not) the difference, especially given the amount of discussion during drafting of the consttuition.
        However, this is only of academic interest. Your communist sources are 100% correct that the GMA (like all commission reports & all assebly resolutions) is non-binding and unenforceable. These can however be regarded as "statements in good faith".
        I agree the communists (in the name of NAMS, not together with it) backed the peasant revolt. However, if you look at the election results, their success was broadly limited to 3 districts. PDF did not have a majority nor was even the largest party in Telangana. Please also remember they were decimated in the 1955 Andhra elections and the "Congresseekarana" trend was visible even in Telangana.
        You state "Clearly, there is overwhelming evidence that Telugus across Nizam, Kosta, and Seema wanted to be part of Andhra Pradesh". I will compile over the next few days a few references to demonstrate how "another interpretation is possible"

  21. Prakash says:

    Mr. Nalamotu, I owe you an apology as you did publish your source. I have since checked slide # 46 of your submission to SKC (page # 296 of KVN Rao's book "The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh"). This throws up some very interesting info:
    a. No vote was actually taken. The session was adjourned without taking a vote. This exposes Mr. Undavalli's untruth (he claimed on TV that 103/175 voted for Vishaladhra). This also eliminates contentions (including those expressed by commenters on your blog) that "party letters don't count; only assembly votes represent the democratic will of the people"
    b. Rao claims MW/HK MLAs supported "Vishalandhra", a preposteros view. Why would they care about Vishalandhra, not Bombay/Mysore?
    c. Rao claims  "unmistakable trend" citing the number in people in favor, against etc. Even if all the members spoke, listening to every speech, understanding and noting down the wish of the members and compiling a region wise list is a Herculean task.
    d. Rao states that the Andhra assembly "demanded" the formation of Vishalandhra. To my knowledge, there is no resolution to this effect. This was possibly one of the two resolutions that promised proportionate Government employment in the event Vishalandhra was formed.
    e. The paragraph preceding the one called out by your presentation is an eye-opener. You may like to publish pages 294 through 296 to enable a more transparent dialog.
    I do not dispute that a section of the people (including almost all communists) supported Vishalandhra. However the evidence you provide does not do credit to someone who claims "compelling evidence to dispel half-truths". Excerpts from KVN Rao do not pass the "Perry Mason test"

    • Chandra says:

      Let me interrupt your conversation with the author. I am just trying to understand what u want  to say. Are u saying that 103 favoured vishalandhra and not "voted" for vishalandhra?
      Second thing is are you saying that there are some mistakes in the book written by Rao?

      • Chakravarthy says:

        I am also struggling with the nuances of this intricately legal argument being presented by Prakash garu.

        I wish he uses a fraction of these skills against the atrocious separatist propaganda that is being circulated.

        It is widely established that the representatives and then CM of Hyderabad State were in favor of merger. How does it matter whether they are communists or if some were not present. Who is to prove which way those that are not present would have voted?

        • Chandra says:

          Chakravarthy garu, absolutely true!!
          Instead of asking you all the time why dont the separate telangana supporters confirm with their own so called intellectuals? Hopefully they will start soon.

  22. Prakash says:

    Chandra, please check slide # 46 of the blogger's submission to SKC (page # 296 of KVN Rao's book). The "overwhelming evidence" claimed by this post is based on KVN Rao's "count" of "views".
    Regarding KVN Rao, there are far too many contradictions & inconsistemcies in the lone page posted to treat him as a credible source.

    • Chandra says:

      I dont understand any confusion in page 46. It discussed about the proceedings that took place in Hyderabad state assembly.  I would like to ask you , do you atleast agree that Hyderabad assembly discussed about SRC recommendations? or just central govt "forcibly" "merged" two regions?
      Please tell me Yes or Know, so that we can continue this discussion.

  23. Prakash says:

    While I await for the blogger to respond, I am struck by the fact no one commented on the poem published at the bottom of the post. This Bismarckian piece by the Avadahani brothers even uses the deregotary term "aravalu" for Tamils.

    • Chakravarthy says:

      You are offended by the term "aravalu" used in a poem in 1930's. I wonder if you had similar reaction when terms like "narukuthaam", "looters", "jaago - bhaago", "naalukalu kostham", "badmaash", "rivers will turn red", used against fellow Telugus.

    • Chandra says:

      I dont think aravallu is a derogatory term. Infact linguists consider this word meaning " Honest people" or "Literate people".   I would be very interested to know your opinion on words like "looters", cheaters. jaag–bhaago, lungi , idli  etc. We can discuss more if you have some important points on this.

  24. Prakash says:

    "Chakravarthy says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:41 am
    You are offended by the term "aravalu" used in a poem in 1930's. I wonder if you had similar reaction when terms like "narukuthaam", "looters", "jaago - bhaago", "naalukalu kostham", "badmaash", "rivers will turn red", used against fellow Telugus"
    Mr. Nalamotu, Mr. Chandra, for the record let me clarify that I do not use or support offensive language against anyone (wthout restricting it to "fellow Telugus" as you do). This applies to all sides in all matters. Please do let me know if you find me using such language.
    You also refer to the various calls for violence. Unfortunately there is too much of this in today's political discourse across India. For every "I will cut his tongue", there is a "I will smash his teeth". My reaction is the same as mentioned above on derogatory terms.
    I trust both of you gentlemen share my views on this. I do not want to raise specific examples and ask you to condemn their use.
    The term "looter" was introduced first by the communists. This comes from an inappropriate translation of "exploitation" into Indian languages (e.g. loot in Hindi or dopidi in Telugu). The more correct term fitting the Marxian logic is "oppressors". Most politicians use it now including in ways that communists did not intend. Whether we like it or not, it appears to have entered the "mainstream" political lexicon in India.
    I did not object to the Avadhani brothers' use of "aravalu". i merely pointed out it is a deregotary term wondering why no one commented on this.
    To the extent I know, the term "aravollu" is as offensive as "ghaati", "kike", "limey" or "nigger". Good to know Chandra's etymology but I wonder how many of those using it know it.
    Hailing from a family of poets, scholars & teachers I expect better standards from these groups than "mere" politicians. I know literature is often violent but offensive but pejoratives are not OK in my view.
    Early pioneers (e.g. Alur Venkat Rao) have often expounded expansionist themes. I do respect their zeal but am uncomfortable with their worldview. I prefer more inclusivist models but then this is just me :)
    PS: Please delete the offensive terms in my comment or replace these with "@#$%", thank you.

  25. Prakash says:

    I posted two comments but these have not been posted, I wonder why.
    "Chandra says:
    July 28, 2010 at 11:13 pm
    Chakravarthy garu, absolutely true!!
    Instead of asking you all the time why dont the separate telangana supporters confirm with their own so called intellectuals? Hopefully they will start soon.
    Chandra, the context suggests you are referring to me. I apologize if this is not the case and you were referring to someone else.
    You brand me a separatist. Can you cite one comment that justifies your conclusion please? My comments on this blog could have been made by anyone of any persuation.
    You infer I do not question "my own" guys. This comment can be valid only if I quoted someone without questioning or verifying.
    "Chakravarthy says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:44 am"
    Mr. Nalamotu, the above response is also to you (to the extent applicable).

  26. Chandra says:

    Mr prakash,
    If you are trying to understand facts with a novel approach, its fine. But your comment on jul 26 about "whose hyderabad" with your friends input is one reason which made me to make above comment.
    Even that input is quite interesting to me if you can dig further into it and come out with some evidence.
    All this effort is to understand facts for  peaceful  coexistence of telugu people. No pseudo passions or emotions except the a feeling that we are all andhras coming from India.

  27. Prakash says:

    Mr. Chandra, I did reply to the "friend's input" question at "Prakash says:July 30, 2010 at 2:03 am". Unfortunately two of comments were delayed by this blog's software for some reason. But would you call someone separatist just for this?
    You say "All this effort is to understand facts for  peaceful  coexistence of telugu people. No pseudo passions or emotions except the a feeling that we are all andhras coming from India."  I wonder where this leaves the linguistic minorities (including those like me with one non-Telugu grand parent)? Do you sincerely believe that "Telugu atmagouravam" is not an emotion? If yes, how does one emotion become noble while the others are "pseudo"?




    /* Style Definitions */
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;

    I find it interesting to note Mr. Nalamotu speaks about "fellow Telugus" with respect to bad language (as if it would have been OK if the abuse came from/was directed to a non-Telugu).
    As I said in the post above I prefer more inclusivist models but then this is just me.

    • Chandra says:

      You said:
      //Do you sincerely believe that "Telugu atmagouravam" is not an emotion? If yes, how does one emotion become noble while the others are "pseudo"//
      If you take comon features in indian culture as the criteria all indians will pass nuremberg test.
      If you take the mother tongue as the criteria all indians will not pass nuremberg test. Only people from AP pass the test. It all depepnds what is the criteria and what are the threshold levels. India is divided on linguistic basis.
      Now if you speak about the atmagauravam of the people staying in particular street in particular village, and call it an emotional feeling, i do not know which test will validate the argument. According to me Telangana atmagauravam is like the atmagauravam of the people of a street in a village. When Limit   of atmagauravam tends to  infinity , it settles at a point called selfishness.
      Hope i have answered your question.

  28. Prabhakar says:

    Kerakites have always been Keralites. Tamilians have always been Tamilians. Kannadigas have always been Kannadigas. And Telugus have always been Telugu people. Then came the Muslim conquerors and occupied part of the Telugu Land. Later the British came and occupied the remaining Telugu Land and ruled for some time. That does not divide us Telugu people. We had been eagerly waiting for the day  when we would defeat the Muslim occupiers and the British occupiers and again become one people again  and that did happen in 11948 and 1956. No body can undo it any more. Not even KCR or TRS. We are one people and we will remain one people for ever. Let us not give the Muslims an opportunity to form a Nizam's State  or a Muslim State once aagain by become weaker Telugu states. If we remain united, no power on earth can defeat us and divide us. Not even the wily Chidamberum or the Parliment. Telugu people all over Andhra Pradesh or Telugu Rashtra should realize that  the majority of our brethren in the Nizam ruled areas of the Telugu Nadu are economically backward as compared to the many 'Non-Telugu Settlers' such as Gujaratis, Marawadis, Punjabis, North Indians, Keralites, and Kannadigas. The major part of our economy , industries, businesses and influence is in their hands. If we divide on flimsy grounds, they will rule the Nizam-Ruled telugu people even as they do right now. They are more powerful, they are rich. Their children get all the best training in the best of schools and colleges, as they can afford thousands or lakhs of rupees. Their children will occupy all the medical and engineering seats. They have the land and the resources. They have cars and bungalows. They move about in high society. They can afford to go to USA or Australia or Europe and settle down as very rich people. But the  the Elliahs, Malliahs, Pulliahs, Pochiahs and Durgiahs who are the majority of the Nizam-ruled Telugu Nadu are so poor that they cannot afford all these facilities and will become the poorest of the poor, working as coolies for these well to do settlers saying to them , "Banchen Dora", "nee kaal moktha dorsani" etc. They will be calling out to them," abay Narsiah kidhar gaya ray" and so on. If these not so fortunate brethren of ours will be united with all the rest of us Telugus of Seemandhra, they will be better off, and taken care of. KCR,  for his own selfish motive has started this msguided movement of seperation  which will be disastrous for these poor people. Almost 90 percent of businesses in Hyderabad and Secunderabad are owned by Non-Telugus from other states. Even then KCR has no cocern for the poor Telugus of the region. If a Telugu brother from seemandhra has a business in Hyderabad, he is an enemy to him. But any number of settlers from other states can come and settle down there and start  businesses and become lakheres and crorepathies and he is least bothered ! Do the Telugu students of the region ever realize that all their seats in colleges and schools are being taken away by the Settlers? Do they realize  that all their job opportunities are being taken away by these Non-Telugu Settlers? Why only Agarwals, Rathodes Mathurs and Nehwals become national level players and get all the medals in International sports? We do not see a Malliah or a Pulliah or a pochamma at that level. Why? Does KCR care about the Telugus of the Nizam's Telangana? I urge my brothers and sisters to open their eyes as to what is in store for them if you divide the Telugu State, and stop backing this movement.

Leave a Reply