Is it difficult to write 100-200 years old history faithfully and honestly in the Indian context? Government sponsored histories (4)

Is it difficult to write 100-200 years old history faithfully and honestly in the Indian context? Government sponsored histories (4)

October 19, 1952 to December 15, 1952 – hunger strike by Potti Sreeramulu: As there was delay again, Sreeramulu resumed his hunger strike on 19 October 1952, at the Madras house of Maharshi Bulusu Sambamurti. Tanguturi Prakasam Panthulu used to visit the hunger-strike camp daily and inquire about his health. The Gandhian, Yerneni Subrahmanyam, used to shed tears secretly seeing his plight. Though Sriramulu became physically weak, he was mentally strong and declined to give up his fast. On the 56^th day, he passed into a coma and a couple of days later, he developed breathing problems.  Sreeramulu died during the night of 15 December 1952. In his death procession, people shouted slogans praising his sacrifice, with thousands more joining as the procession reached Mount Road, Madras. This made them to shout[1], “All Aravavadus should die, and we want Andhra Rajaya”. The procession broke into a riot and accompanying destruction of public property.  Though, it happened in Madras, seldom this is discussed.

What EVR (1879-1973) was doing in 1952?: Soon after the Constitution was adopted on 26 January 1950, efforts were made to propagate Hindi for official usage. In 1952, the Ministry of Education launched a voluntary Hindi teaching scheme. On 27 May 1952, the use of Hindi was introduced in warrants for judicial appointments. The DK and DMK leaders were there in Madras carrying out their political activities. The DK version of Veeramani gives these details, “E.V. Ramasami Naicker opposed the scheme of New Elementary education on the basis of the parents hereditary occupation, introduced by the CM Rajaji  He and his followers erased with tar the Hindi-name-Boards in all Railway stations reportedly all over Tamil Nadu on July 27, 1952. ………The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution – Periyar Trust – A Public Charitable Society was registered in 1952.” However, the defacers of the Hindi letters were penalized and imprisoned on the grounds that they irritated the populace. However, the Anti-Hindi agitation, which began in August 1952, began to spread widely[2]. He stated that the Sanskrit script, Devanagiri, was used to write Hindi, but the agitation was against the language, not the script. At last, he pulled out the Counter Hindi fomentation with a confirmation from the press. If the government forced the use of Hindi, he made the decision to burn even the national flag[3]. However, in November 1952, there was news that EVR was supporting him for his policies[4] ending his 30-year old opposition. Therefore, it is not known how they were reacting to fast unto death of Potti Sreeramulu very near to their houses. How foreign media reported can also be noted in the context.

Anti-Hindi agitation and the formation of linguistic based states: The anti-Hindi agitation has to be analyzed carefully:

• When the demand was there for the creation of states based on language, why Hindi should be opposed in the context has to be noted.
• No separate state can be created with Hindi as the majority state, as Hindi is already used in the northern states.
• All the Hindi speaking areas cannot be formed into single state, as definitely other states would object to it. Thus, Hindi cannot be a uniting factor, even for Hindi speaking people.
• Unlike Tamilnadu, there has not been any serious opposition to Hindi from the South Indian states.
• In fact, the four South Indian states have to be created only based on four separate languages.
• Incidentally, in India next to Hindi, Telugu is spoken by many people.
• However, it is not known as to whether the Dravidologists opposed Telugu, as the agitated against Hindi. Therefore, the anti-Hindi agitation by the Dravidian protagonists seems to be more to the assumed race ideology and racism, rather than the linguistic reason. However, how the demand for “Dravidastan” was reduced to Tamilnadu and that was also abandoned by C. N. Annadurai (1909-1969) and all – is well-known. For coming to power, they sacrificed their ideological “Dravidastan”![5]

Why EVR could not have met Potti Sreeramulu when they were living / staying nearby?: Some may give a reason – In every state and every region, there had / has been many leaders and therefore, not much importance was / is given to all leaders and hence, some were / are not covered in the history books. However, communities, sectarians and  groups create their own leaders with literature. When they were living in the same time being contemporary, that too, with 5-10 kms, it cannot be said that they were not known to each other. When they were engaged in the social and political issues with their followers, it is unbelievable that they were carrying out such activities without knowing each other. In Madras, thus, thousands of leaders, politicians, scientists, musicians, religious Mutt Heads and others always used to come and go and meet also. When EVR had been so eager to meet Jinnah and Ambedkar and others, it is intriguing as to why he could not have met Potti Sreeramulu living nearby. In fact, he could have met him, discussed and resolved the issue also. However, such meetings, attempts or peace processes undertaken have not been noted or recorded by the historians or researchers.

A balanced view should be taken in portraying leaders: Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, Pon. Muthuramalinga Thevar, V.V.S. Iyer and such other leaders are not dealt with properly by historians and researchers. About the Bose, the end is in mystery. About others, though their work has been enormous and remarkable, not many of the current generation know about. While mythologization has been going on in other cases, as discussed above, here, in these cases, perhaps, negationism is followed so that they may be forgotten soon. As for as Indians are concerned, they have treated all leaders equally and know them. Definitely, the learned and experienced regional leaders worked with a national outlook, as they know all Indians have to live and carry out their duties and responsibilities by depending upon each other. Therefore, the history of them has to be recorded for posterity without any bias, prejudice and concoction on any account. The recent attempt of “Azadi ka Amrutotsav” has been good, as it brings out many regional freedom fighters to the public. As it is done through print and electronic media, the message reaches many Indian of all parts of India.

Government sponsored history would be one-sided only: Modern administrative, political, democratic and other processes may not be 100% foolproof. 50% voted and 50% not voted, yet the won candidates, with the majority party forms the government and rule.

• In the same way only, 700 years of Mohammedans ruled and 300 years of colonial forces rule, but they could not rule all the Indians living in all places of India.
• In fact, it is a myth that they ruled entire India, but, historians write and teach so.  
• Crores of Indians were living without any impact of these ruling groups.
• In other words, they were carrying out raids, looting and running way many times.
• Till they tried to negotiate with the local rulers and getting settled down, they could not rule Indians.
• For that only, they learned the languages, appointed Pundits, translators and dubashis and other negotiators.
• Then, they appointed Indian agents to collect money in the form of tax assuring to provide safety, army, artillery, horses and other facilities.
• Good managers, mediators and negotiators enjoyed life and earned much to become rich-mirasidar, tashildar and zamindar.
• Though, already such categories were there operating, these categories were Mohammedan and colonial sponsored ones.

Thus, the histories formulated or written by them would be of that nature only.  Here also, whatever history produced would be one-sided, official and imposed on others.

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

15-05-2024

---

[1] “Aravavalantha chavala, Andhra Rajyam kavala” M. P. Sivagnanam, Suyaatchi Pirivinaiya? (Is Autonomy Separation?), Inba Nilayam, Chennai,  1959, p.27.

[2] G.O. No. 3471, 1957, p.7.

[3] G.O. No.1814, 1953, p.3

[4] Indian Daily Mail, Periyar ends 30 year- old opposition to Rajaji, Singapore, 27-11-1952, front page.

[5] Remember, the Dravidologists asserted, “If at all we want to get, we shall get only Dravidastan, otherwise, crematory grounds” [அடைந்தால் திராவிட நாடு, இல்லையென்றால் சுடுகாடு = adainthal dravida nadu, illaiyendral sudukadu].

Is it difficult to write 100-200 years old history faithfully and honestly in the Indian context? Importance events sidelined and ignored (3)

Is it difficult to write 100-200 years old history faithfully and honestly in the Indian context? Importance events sidelined and ignored (3)

Editing, expunging and expurging the speeches and writings of the leaders: Now, every political party wants to save India, particularly, the party that wanted to break away from India, too claims so. About the ideology of the DMK, such tendencies are well known, as C.N. Annadurai himself ignored “Dravidastan” to contest elections and become the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. The pranks, prangs, brawls and speeches and writings of them have also been well-known, yet, they are held in esteem. Many of them could not be printed and thus, they are edited, filled up with dots…… or totally expurged. Vulgar, unbecoming, unparliamentarily, offensive, disparaging, derogatory and all other words and expressions can be added, but, they do not equal with what they talked and written. The moment, they expired, statues are raised and elevated to the level of godhead. Ironically, though, they have been atheists and talk ill of Hindu religon, as recently, the DMK Minster has done with, and the cases pending with the Supreme Court and High Courts[1], their statues are put up and venerated. One pro-Dravidian researcher has researched about “dirty words” in Tamil[2], but, he coolly ignored this historical prank. He reportedly visited foreign countries to collect details about the Dravidian leaders, as if, he could not get such details from the local sources, directly, as they have registered offices, printing press and back-issues of their official dailies and journals.

Historians, historiographers and history writers have to update their subject in consonance with the development of science and technology: Nowadays, a paper “History of Indian science and Technology” is added to the students of history, archaeology, anthropology and related subjects, but, for some reason the visits of these scientists to India, their connection with Indian counterparts and how India has been managing with them, in spite of USA-USSR and later international ideological ramifications etc., are not known. Definitely, these visits form part and parcel of Indian recent history and reading history without them cannot give a full picture about the position of India in global context, are not included. Every subject has to be updated and made to be useful to people, as consumerism demands such usage. Though, the political history alone is not enough or work with countries like India, very often historians, historiographers and history writers restrict them to such a limited area. There also, as pointed out, they aid and abet politicians, powerful political lobbyists and corporate, and therefore, the 100-200 years history suffer from such lacuna, drawback and disadvantage.

The leaders, dignitaries and VIPs visited Madras and Tamilnadu and the related events: As many VIPs have visited Madras, Tamilnadu, the related events and their significance can be explained. Many recent historical events can be recorded, elaborated and discussed, but not done. Some of them are listed out here:

• 1896 – Winston Churchill’s visit to Madras
• Ambedkar visits to Madras
• 1927 – whether EVR met Gandhi or not.
• 1939 – Subash Chandra Bose visit to Tamilnadu
• 1941 – Jinnah’s visit to Madras. the Muslim league’s 28^th session in the Madras People’s park.
• EVR role in Vaikom Satyagraha.
• 1952 – Potti Sreeramulu fast unto death in Madras
• Ramanujan working at the Madras Port Trust.
• Aurobindo in Tamilnadu.
• V.V. S.Iyer in Tamilnadu.
• How Rajaji differed from Nehru[3].
• 1961 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, made their first visit to Madras Then came in 1997.
• The visits of the great scientists to India – Neils Bohr, Norbert Wiener, PMS Blackett, Joseph Needham and JBS Haldane.

• According to his note in the Blackett Papers, Royal Society, Patrick Blackett visited India in 1947, 1948, 1950, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1971.
• 1952 – JBS Haldane was the key-speaker at the Indian Science Congress, 39^th session, Calcutta.
• 1953 – Dr. Norbert Wiener who visited the Ramanujan Institute of Mathematics in 1953.
• In December 1954, Professor Dirac, one of the greatest physicists of the 20^th Century, gave a lecture at the Senate House of the University of Madras.
• 1960 January – Neils Bohr visited Madras.
• Jan 1964 – Second Anniversary Symposium of MATSCIENCE and the visits of Professor Leon Rosenfeld (Niels Bohr Visiting Professor) and McCrea Hazlett (Provost, Univ. Rochester.

These are given just for illustrative purposes and not exhaustive, while many VIPs visited many cities in India during the last 100-200 years, historians, researchers and others do not bother about. Instead, new myths are created about the leaders. Some are discussed below. As language was given more importance by the Dravidologists, such related issues are taken up. It is well-known that the  Dravidlogists claimed separate state / country “Dravidastan” based on the Dravidian / Tamil language, to be carved out of India, just like Pakistan. However, the Telugu speaking people wanted Andhradesa within India. This is the main difference.

The claim over Madras and Tirupati: The two alternative political solutions suggested by Andhra leaders were to make Madras as joint capital of Andhra and Madras States or to divide the City, allowing the areas north of the river Cooum going to Andhra and areas south of the river going to Madras states, which did not find favour with Tamils or central leaders. C. Rajagopalachari (1878-1972), the then chief minister of Madras province, did not support Madras moving to Andhra State. On the Tamil peoples’ side M. P. Sivagnanam (Maposi 1906-1995) leader of a Tamil organization called Tamil Arasu Kazhagam agitated against Telugus’ claim organising rallies, meetings and dharnas etc., saying “talai koduttenum talainagaraik kappoom, vengadattai vitamattom” (We will protect and save the capital for Tamils even if we have to part with our heads, We will not give up our claim over Tirupati)[4]. With the demand of “Madharas manathe” movement, and the delay in the implementation of separate Andhra state, Potti Srimulu (1901-1952) started fast unto death[5]. The JVP (Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, Pattabhi) committee, headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, would not accept that proposal with the Andhra State. The Congress leaders opined that despite the entreaties of supporters who stated that retention of Madras was a futile cause. Nehru ignored it[6] and Rajaji too ironically did not care to take steps[7]. The difference between Nehru and Rajaji is not discussed generally by the historians and researchers.

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

15-05-2024

---

[1] Udhayanidhi Stalin vs State of Maharashtra and Ors – similar cases pending in other courts also.

[2] A.R. Venkatachalapathy,   Dirty Words: A History of Swearing and Abuse in Tamil, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai. This he presented at differet places including the 41^st session of APHC held at Anatapur in 2017.

[3] At Nehru’s invitation, in 1950, Rajagopalachari joined the Union Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio where   he served as a buffer between Nehru and Home Minister Sardar Patel and on occasion offered to mediate between the two. Following Patel’s death on 15 December 1950, Rajagopalachari was finally made Home Affairs Minister and went on to serve for nearly 10 months. As had his predecessor, he warned Nehru about the expansionist designs of China and expressed regret over the Tibet problem. He also expressed concern over demands for new linguistically based states, arguing that they would generate differences amongst the people. By the end of 1951, the differences between Nehru and Rajagopalachari came to the fore. While Nehru perceived the Hindu Mahasabha to be the greatest threat to the nascent republic, Rajagopalachari held the opinion that the Communists posed the greatest danger. He also adamantly opposed Nehru’s decision to commute the death sentences passed on those involved in the Telangana uprising and his strong pro-Soviet leanings. Tired of being persistently over-ruled by Nehru concerning critical decisions, Rajagopalachari submitted his resignation on the “grounds of ill-health” and returned to Madras.

[4] Maposi spearheadedthe counter movement, “தலை கொடுத்தேனும் தலைநகரைக் காப்போம், வேங்கடத்தை விடமாட்டோம்,” claiming Tirupati.

[5] Madrasi, also spelled as Madrassi, is a term used as a demonym and a regional slur for people from southern India, especially Tamil Nadu. In earlier usage it was a demonym to refer to the people of Madras Presidency, including the people of present-day Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and parts of Karnataka and Kerala, however this use of the term is now outdated. In present-day, the exonym Madrasi specifically refers to the people in living in Madras (officially called as Chennai), and the term Chennaite (or Chennaivasi) is the endonym for the people living in the city. Just like “Dravidastan,” this term has also restricted to be used for the people of Madras / Chennai.

[6] On 3rd December, Nehru wrote to Rajagopalachari: ‘Some kind of fast is going on for the Andhra Province and I get frantic telegrams. I am totally unmoved by this and I propose to ignore it completely.”

[7] Rjaji became the CM after the first legislative assembly Election to the Madras state based on universal adult suffrage that was held in 27 March 1952. This was the first election held in Madras state after the Indian Independence. This election was officially known as the 1951 Madras State Election, even though through delays, actual voting didn’t take place until early 1952.