Telangana Movement | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Overview - Telangana Movement

The Telangana Movement was initiated in the state of Andhra Pradesh as a protest against the feudal system established by the former Nizam of Hyderabad. The agricultural social structure in Hyderabad under the Nizam was characterized by two types of land tenure systems: raiyatwari and jagirdari. The raiyatwari system granted land ownership to peasants who held pattas (land titles) and were considered registered occupants. These individuals were known as shikmidars. The khalsa lands, which were managed by chieftains, contributed to the personal expenses of the royal family. Deshmukhs and Deshpandes, hereditary revenue collectors, oversaw the khalsa villages. In contrast, jagir villages had taxes collected by jagirdars and their representatives. Both jagirdars and Deshmukhs held significant power at the local level.
The region of Telangana experienced a feudal economy, with the principal cash crops - groundnut, tobacco, and castor seed - controlled by landowning Brahmins. The emergence of Reddys and peasant proprietors further consolidated the influence of upper castes and the propertied class. Additionally, non-cultivating urban groups, such as Brahmins, Marwaris, Komtis, and Muslims, began to acquire land. As a result, peasant proprietors experienced a decline in status, becoming tenants-at-will, sharecroppers, and landless laborers. The Telangana Movement aimed to challenge this feudal order and improve the conditions for those adversely affected by these systems.

Following were the main causes of the movement:

• The Telangana Peasant Movement emerged in response to several factors, including the oppressive feudal structure of administration in the former Hyderabad state under the Nizam rule. The jagirdar system, in which land taxes were collected by agents, allowed for significant exploitation of peasants. This exploitation continued until the jagirdari system was abolished in 1949.
• Another cause of the movement was the exploitative khalsa, or raiyatwari system, in which Deshmukhs and Deshpandes acted as intermediaries in land tax collection. These individuals often cheated peasants by manipulating land records, further exacerbating their struggles.
• In both the jagir and khalsa systems, peasants were burdened by high taxes, fraudulent records, and exploitation by intermediaries appointed by the Nizam. This created widespread discontent among the poor peasants.
• Moreover, big peasants, such as the Durra or Dora families, exploited small peasants and agricultural laborers. This exploitation became legitimized over time, contributing to the vetti system, in which a landlord or Deshmukh could force a family to work as retainers, cultivating land and performing various jobs as an obligation to the master.
• The Bhagela system, akin to the Hali system in South Gujarat, was another form of indentured servitude in the former Hyderabad state. Under this system, tenants who had borrowed money from landlords were obliged to serve them until their debts were repaid, often lasting for generations.
• The Reddis and Kammas, traditionally traders and moneylenders, sought to challenge the dominance of Brahmin agriculturists in the state. Additionally, the Telangana region was economically underdeveloped, and the lack of irrigation facilities disproportionately benefited large farmers.
• Land alienation, a growing issue between 1910 and 1940, resulted in increased land possession by non-cultivating urban people, while tribal peasants were reduced to marginal farmers and landless laborers. This further exacerbated the struggles of the lower segments of the peasantry, who were waiting for an opportunity to revolt. The Telangana Peasant Movement emerged in response to these various factors, which collectively created a climate of discontent among the region's poor peasants.

The course of events that led to the Telangana peasant struggle can be described as under:

• The Telangana peasant struggle can be traced back to the Communist Party of India (CPI), which began working in Telangana in 1936. Professor N.G. Ranga established a regional-level peasant organization in Telangana, which was affiliated with the All India Kisan Sabha, an organ of the CPI. By 1940, the CPI had established its roots in the former Hyderabad state. From 1944 to 1946, Communist activities increased in several districts of Hyderabad, laying the groundwork for a peasant movement in Telangana.
• In 1946, a famine hit Hyderabad and more specifically, Telangana, leading to crop failures and a crisis for tenants and sharecroppers. The prices of food, fodder, and other necessities of life increased, providing an opportunity for the CPI to engineer a peasant struggle. In July 1946, peasants resisted government orders, with the CPI-led peasants taking militant action.
• The CPI aimed to mobilize the peasants and took up a campaign to propagate the demands of the lower peasants. By mid-1946, the Communist propaganda had intensified and covered around 300-400 villages. Although the movement was slow, the peasants showed resistance to government dictates. Only local Telangana peasants participated in the mobilization of the peasantry.
• The second conference of the CPI was held in March 1948, resolving to give a revolutionary turn to the peasant movement in Telangana. The peasants were later organized into an army and fought guerrilla wars intermittently. They killed or drove out landlords and local bureaucrats, seizing and distributing land. Peasants established governments of peasant 'soviets' integrated regionally into a central organization. This continued until 1950, with the area remaining a political stronghold of the Communist Party.
• In addition to the peasant agitation, a parallel discontent was taking place in Hyderabad. A paramilitary voluntary force, organized by Kasim Rizvi, known as Razakars, was against the peasants. The peasants consolidated their movement in the face of the oppression of Nizam, activities of Razakars, and the authority crisis in Hyderabad.
• On September 13, 1948, the Indian army marched into Hyderabad, and within less than a week, the Nizam's army, police, and Razakars surrendered without resistance. The police action taken by the newly formed Central government of independent India was quick to suppress the peasant movement. The police action aimed to stop the Razakars' frenzies, which created anarchic conditions within the state and posed a serious threat to the internal security of neighboring Indian territory. Once the Razakars were overpowered and a military administration was set up, the offensive was directed at the peasant rebels in the troubled districts of Telangana.
• The Telangana peasant movement had to be withdrawn due to the police action, which dealt a significant blow to the Communist-led movement. More than 2,000 peasants and party workers were killed, and by July 1950, nearly 10,000 Communists and active participants had been arrested. This demonstrated the intensity of the Telangana peasant struggle.

The Telangana peasant movement continued for about five years. Its outcomes can be enumerated as below:

• The Telangana peasant movement, which lasted for about five years, had several significant outcomes. One major achievement was the unification of various classes of peasantry, including tenants, sharecroppers, and landless laborers, alongside the involvement of rich peasants, mainly from the Brahmin caste. This marked the first time these different groups came together in a struggle, consolidating the strength of poor peasants and tribal communities who had been subjected to bonded labor.
• Another outcome of the movement was the strengthening of the Communist Party's influence over the entire state of Hyderabad for a long time. However, the party also experienced ideological divisions during the struggle, with one group supporting the movement and another condemning it as terrorism. This split was particularly sharp and acute in Telangana, as observed by P. Sundarayya, who noted that the division extended from the top to the bottom of the Communist Party.
• In terms of the movement's impact on poor agricultural classes, the results were less successful. While the rich Kamma and Reddy peasants saw some gains, the benefits for poor peasants and sharecroppers were minimal. It is important to note that the Telangana peasant struggle was primarily initiated and driven by the Communist Party, rather than arising from the peasants themselves.
• Despite the mixed outcomes of the movement, it served as a source of inspiration for communists across India. As D.N. Dhanagare points out, the Telangana insurrection was not more successful than other peasant resistance movements in the country, but it did become a source of legends and motivation for the radical left in India. The movement's silver jubilee celebrations saw renewed interest from both academics and politicians, although it also became an occasion for divisions within the Communist Party to resurface.

Naxalbari Movement 

The Naxalbari Movement, also known as the Naxalbari peasant struggle, was initiated in March-April 1967 in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal, India. This movement was inspired by the Tebhaga peasant movement of 1946 and aimed to transform the entire society, not just the conditions of peasants. The Naxalbari movement was characterized by a strong belief in violence, advocating that power comes from the barrel of a gun and not through slogans or non-violence. The ultimate goal of the movement was to completely annihilate the big farmers, landlords, and jagirdars in order to change the structure of society.
One of the key features of the Darjeeling region is the high percentage of sharecroppers, which is why the Naxalbari movement was primarily a movement led by these individuals. Initially, the movement was limited to three police stations - Phanisidewa, Naxalbari, and Khoribari - with a combined population of about 100,000. The percentage of sharecroppers in these areas ranged from 50% to 65%. The main crops cultivated by the people were paddy and jute, with the Rajbansis being the most dominant community in the region, comprising more than 50% of the population.
There were several significant causes for the Naxalbari movement:

• Excessive shares of produce were taken by the landlords, which varied from one-half to one-third. The sharecroppers demanded a reduction in the share of produce taken by landlords.
• The peasants called for the regulation and distribution of benami lands in an appropriate manner.
• The sharecroppers were powerless and under the control of the big landholders, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and agitation.
• Although the Naxalbari movement was a peasant movement, the primary cause was the class war between big farmers and ordinary peasants.
• The sharecroppers were against their dependency on big farmers, who operated under the principle, "I will feed you, you produce for me". This dependency was not acceptable to the tenants-at-will, praja, and landless laborers.
• The praja were subjected to begar, which involved working as Hali or Vetti.
• The judiciary in the district was biased in favor of the big farmers, often victimizing the praja.
• The strained production relations between the Jotedar and the praja, adhiar, and sharecroppers led to the exploited masses of peasants seeking a revolutionary struggle.

The course of events that led to the Naxalbari movement can be described as under:

• The Naxalbari movement, led by Charu Majumdar, emerged from the Siliguri group that formulated six guiding documents for peasants, advocating militancy as a means to capture power. This group encouraged peasants to believe that land should be given to the tiller, the Congress party should be defeated, and a people's government should be established through armed revolution. The movement targeted the landed propertied class, mobilizing a broad range of peasants, including sharecroppers, against the big farmers known as jotedars.
• In March 1967, the movement turned violent with the murder of a moneylender, followed by a series of killings targeting jotedars and sahukars. The movement's messages were spread through slogans, some of which were borrowed from the Tebhaga peasant movement. Local leaders like Panchnam Sarkar and Kanu Sanyal led the movement, which eventually spread across West Bengal and attracted the participation of college students and other sections of society.
• The Naxalbari movement was fundamentally aimed at challenging the power of the big farmers or jotedars. Although there were no immediate gains from the struggle, it significantly influenced the direction of peasant movements in India. The Naxalbari movement was ideologically rooted in Marxist socialism and focused on addressing the contradictions between capital and labor in the jotedar-adhiari relationship. The movement did not seek structural changes within the old feudal system; instead, it aimed for systematic change that would end exploitation and oppression in the semi-feudal system.

Backward Castes Movements 

The Backward Caste Movement, which aimed to challenge the caste system and Brahminical dominance in India, was founded by the renowned social reformer Jyothirao Phule. He was the first to revolt against the caste system and worked towards uplifting the lower castes by establishing schools and hostels for them. In 1873, Phule founded the Satya Shodhak Samaj, an organization that played a crucial role in the Non-Brahmin Movement. He encouraged the non-Brahmin castes, particularly the oppressed ones, to break free from mental and religious slavery while promoting education and denouncing idol worship and superstitions.

• After Phule's death in 1890, Sri Sahu Maharaj of Kolhapur took up the mantle of leading the Satya Shodhak Samaj. As a prince, he appreciated Phule's cause and continued his work by opening schools and hostels exclusively for non-Brahmin students. He was also influenced by the Arya Samaj and aimed to spread the message of the Vedas to the downtrodden castes. Sri Sahu questioned the caste system, its membership rules, and the Shastras' support for the caste system in its current form.
• Sri Sahu Maharaj's primary focus was on ensuring communal representation for the oppressed and downtrodden castes. His efforts led to the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, which granted special representation to non-Brahmins through mixed electorates. He also secured a reservation of certain government positions for non-Brahmins and separated the judiciary from the executive functions in his home state.
• Sri Sahu Maharaj's most significant contribution was his support and inspiration for numerous non-Brahmin organizations, such as the Somavamshi Arya Kshatriya Jnana Vardhak Samaj, Gujarati Untouchables Depressed Classes Mission Society, Kurmi Kshatriya Samaj, Maratha Samaj, Mohammedan Samaj, Lingayat Samaj in Mysore, and the Justice Party in Tamil Nadu. He supported these organizations and helped unite them under the umbrella of the Non-Brahmin Movement.

Justice Party and the Non Brahmin Movement: The Second Phase

• During the early 20th century, the non-Brahmin population in the Madras Presidency expressed their discontentment through various efforts to organize themselves. One such effort was the establishment of the Dravidian Association Hostel in Madras in June 1916 by a Vellala medical student named Mudaliar, who received support from other non-Brahmins. Mudaliar also started the South Indian People's Association Ltd., a joint stock company aimed at publishing newspapers in English, Telugu, and Tamil to voice the grievances and problems faced by the non-Brahmin community. Prominent individuals like Dr. J.M. Nair, Sir P.T. Chettiar, and T. Mudaliar joined the association, strengthening its cause. The association launched newspapers such as Justice in English, The Dravidian in Tamil, and Andhra Prakashika in Telugu. Eventually, they formed the South Indian Liberal Federation, which later became known as the Justice Party.
• In December 1916, the Justice Party released the Non-Brahmin Manifesto, which targeted the Brahmin community that had dominated the fields of education, public service, and politics. The manifesto revealed the disproportionately high concentration of Brahmins in important positions, despite constituting only 3% of the total population of the Madras Presidency. Dr. J.M. Nair, the chief leader of the Justice Party Movement, declared that any reforms without provisions for communal representation would fail. Through the manifesto, he highlighted the fact that from 1892 to 1904, Brahmins secured 94% of the positions in the Madras Provincial Civil Services. Furthermore, in 1904, 77 out of 140 Deputy Collectors were Brahmins, and in 1913, 93 out of 128 permanent district Munsifs were Brahmins. In 1914, 450 out of 650 registered graduates of the Madras University were Brahmins. The Non-Brahmin Manifesto demanded provisions for communal representation based on these statistics.
• Using this demand as their main slogan, the Justice Party contested elections and won, forming its ministry from 1920 to 1923. Although they were defeated in 1926, they regained power in 1930. However, the Congress Party ousted the Justice Party in 1937 by winning the elections. Despite its eventual defeat, the Justice Party played a significant role as a ruling party from 1920 to 1935, advocating for the rights and representation of the non-Brahmin community.

Justice Party- A Party of Elites and not Masses?
The Justice Party claimed to represent the entire non-Brahmin population. However, in reality, it primarily focused on specific groups, such as the depressed castes and Muslims, rather than the masses as a whole. As noted by Andre Beteille, the Justice Party was essentially an elite party, heavily influenced by urban, western-educated, landowning, and professional individuals. Among its members were Rajas, Zamindars, industrialists, lawyers, and doctors. The party was not a mass organization, and it is uncertain if any significant effort was made to include peasants and workers within its structure.

Self Respect Movement 

The Self Respect Movement emerged as a non-Brahmin movement under the leadership of E.V. Ramasami Naicker, a Baliya Naidu who initially began his political career with the Congress. However, he was dissatisfied with the treatment of non-Brahmins within the Madras Congress organization and was upset with Gandhi's support for the Varna ideology. As a result, he left the Congress Party and founded the Self Respect Movement in 1925.

• The primary aim of the Self Respect Movement was to reject Brahminical culture and religion, the caste system, and the supremacy of Brahmins in all aspects of life. The movement saw Brahminical culture and religion as a tool to oppress Tamilians. Naicker publicly ridiculed the Puranas as fairy tales, irrational, and immoral, and attempted to free people from puranic Hinduism. He also condemned religious ceremonies that required Brahmin priests and denounced caste rules, child marriage, and enforced widowhood. Naicker believed that the Laws of Manu were designed to maintain Brahmin supremacy and enslave other caste groups.
• Naicker advocated for a new value system in which all people could enjoy self-respect. By attacking Brahmins and mocking their religious culture, he sought support from lower-caste individuals. He claimed that the lower classes and lower sections of Tamil society represented the Dravidian culture, which he considered superior to the Brahminical Aryan culture. The formulation of this Dravidian ideology in opposition to the Aryan ideology served as the foundation of the Self Respect Movement.
• Unlike the Justice Party, which attracted middle and upper-middle-class Hindus from both Tamil and Telugu regions, the Self Respect Movement focused mainly on Tamil districts and lower-caste groups, including untouchables. Naicker used Tamil as the language of communication, and Tamil newspapers reflected his anti-Brahminical, anti-Aryan, anti-Sanskrit, and anti-North Indian views. As a result, the movement gained support from uneducated, untouchable, oppressed, and exploited sections of society, as well as women and rural youth. The movement took a violent turn when a copy of the Manu Smriti was burned by its supporters in 1920.
• As M.N. Srinivas points out, the movement was explicitly anti-Brahmin and encouraged non-Brahmins to avoid using Brahmin priests for rituals. Followers were required to use the Tamil language for all political and other purposes, and they claimed to be Dravidians and members of a sovereign independent state. The movement was anti-Brahmin, anti-North, anti-Hindi, anti-Sanskrit, and anti-god. It also attempted to rid Tamil of long-established Sanskrit words and promote the singing of exclusively Tamil songs at public concerts.
• The Self Respect Movement became increasingly radical and violent, demanding the establishment of Dravidasthan, similar to Pakistan. At this stage, Naicker discovered a talented young leader named C.N. Annadurai, a Tamil Vellala who was fluent in both English and Tamil. Recognizing Annadurai's abilities, Naicker assigned him a significant role in the activities of the Self Respect Movement.

The Dravida Kazhagam [D.K.]
In December 1938, Naicker was elected president of the Justice Party and coined the slogan "Tamil Nad for Tamilians," emphasizing the importance of non-Brahmins. In 1944, the Justice Party transformed into the Dravida Kazhagam (D.K.) under C.N. Annadurai's leadership, with the main goal of creating a separate Dravidian, non-Brahmin country. Consequently, the Self Respect movement, which initially emerged as a protest against Aryan culture, evolved into an explicit political movement.

• The Dravida Kazhagam, led by Annadurai, continued advocating against Brahminism in social and cultural spheres. This opposition manifested in attacks on individual Brahmin priests, destruction of Hindu deities' images, attempts to burn copies of the Ramayana, and disrespect towards puranas, epics, Manu Smriti, and Sanskrit literature. The Ramayana was perceived by the D.K. as an embodiment of Aryan racialism.
• Due to differences between Annadurai and Ramasami Naicker, the Dravida Kazhagam split, leading to the establishment of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1949 under Annadurai's leadership. The DMK's primary goal was to create Dravidanad and initially supported Tamil separatism and opposed the north, Hindi, and Sanskrit. However, over time, the DMK softened its stance. As Oommen notes, once Brahmin dominance in Tamil Nadu declined, the movement had to shift its focus to survive. It eventually aimed to reduce north Indian dominance (economically and linguistically) and sought greater authority for states within the federal setup. This resulted in the promotion of Tamil nationalism and culture within the Indian Union, transforming the DMK into a regional movement.
• The DMK advocated for a casteless society and an egalitarian Dravidanadu, appealing to the oppressed and downtrodden. Similar to the Self Respect movement, the DMK aimed to eliminate superstitious beliefs rooted in religion and tradition. Party members were prohibited from wearing sectarian marks of faith on their foreheads and encouraged to avoid using Brahmin priests in ceremonies. The movement actively campaigned for widow remarriage and inter-caste marriages. The reformed marriage rites of the DK and DMK gained widespread acceptance among non-Brahmins in Tamil Nadu.

Impact of the Non-Brahmin Movement

• The non-Brahmin movement had a significant impact on South Indian politics and society. According to Andre Beteille, one of the most important consequences of the movement was the introduction of a "communal" or caste-based idiom into South Indian politics. This created an impression that the caste identity of a person, specifically whether they were Brahmin or non-Brahmin, played a crucial role in political contests.
• Another consequence of the movement was the formation of alliances that transcended linguistic and cultural divisions. Apart from the consequences mentioned by Beteille, the movement had other notable effects.
• The non-Brahmin movement led to its leaders glorifying Dravidian culture in opposition to Aryan gods and culture. They adopted a secessionist strategy to achieve independence and self-respect. The movement combined Dravidian cultural ideology with political separatism, making it highly appealing to the lower-middle classes, lower castes, and untouchables.
• However, the non-Brahmin movement was not a mass movement. As M.N. Srinivas pointed out, the opposition to Brahmin dominance came not from the low and oppressed castes but from the leaders of powerful, rural dominant castes such as the Kammas and Reddis of Telugu country, the Vellalas of Tamil country, and the Nayar of Kerala.

Non Brahmin Movement in Karnataka

• The non-Brahmin movement in Madras influenced the neighboring princely state of Mysore, where the Lingayats and Okkaligas – the two dominant castes – as well as the minority Muslim community, felt overshadowed and oppressed by the Brahmins. To address this issue, the Okkaligas and Lingayats formed their respective caste associations in 1906 and 1909, eventually uniting with other ethnic and cultural groups to create the Praja Mitra Mandali in 1917.
• The Mandali appealed to the Maharaja of Mysore in 1918, requesting reservations for non-Brahmins in public services and educational institutions. In response, the Maharaja appointed the Miller Committee, which ultimately recommended approving all of the Mandali's demands. This decision enabled the Okkaligas and Lingayats to gain significant benefits in education, employment, and politics, eventually surpassing the Brahmins in positions of power and influence in various fields.
• However, the non-Brahmin movement in Mysore differed from the one in Madras in two key ways. Firstly, unlike the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, the Mysore movement did not alienate backward classes and Muslims. Secondly, the anti-Brahmin sentiment in Mysore did not develop into a pro-Dravidian or anti-Aryan, anti-North, or anti-Sanskrit stance.

Conclusion

The Telangana Movement, Naxalbari Movement, and the Non-Brahmin Movement all emerged as reactions to various forms of exploitation and oppression in different regions of India. These movements aimed to challenge the existing social, economic, and political structures that favored certain groups, such as landowners and Brahmins, while marginalizing others, such as peasants and lower castes. Although the outcomes of these movements were mixed, they played a significant role in shaping the political and social landscape of India and continue to inspire activists and scholars today.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) of Telangana Movement

What was the main goal of the Telangana Movement?

The Telangana Movement aimed to challenge the oppressive feudal and land tenure systems established by the former Nizam of Hyderabad, which led to the exploitation of peasants by the elite landowning class. The movement sought to improve the conditions for those adversely affected by these systems.

What was the Naxalbari Movement, and what were its main causes?

The Naxalbari Movement, also known as the Naxalbari peasant struggle, was initiated in 1967 in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal, India. It aimed to transform society by advocating for violence against big farmers, landlords, and jagirdars in order to change the social structure. The main causes of the movement were the exploitation of sharecroppers by landlords, the dependency of the poor on big farmers, and the biased judiciary in favor of big farmers.

What is the significance of the Self Respect Movement in India?

The Self Respect Movement, founded by E.V. Ramasami Naicker, aimed to challenge Brahminical culture and religion, the caste system, and the supremacy of Brahmins in all aspects of life. The movement sought to promote self-respect and equality among lower-caste individuals by rejecting traditional religious beliefs and advocating for a new value system.

How did the Non-Brahmin Movement impact South Indian politics and society?

The Non-Brahmin Movement introduced a caste-based idiom into South Indian politics, leading to an increased focus on caste identity in political contests. The movement also formed alliances that transcended linguistic and cultural divisions, and it combined Dravidian cultural ideology with political separatism, making it highly appealing to lower castes and untouchables. However, it was not a mass movement, as its opposition to Brahmin dominance primarily came from leaders of powerful, rural dominant castes.

How did the Backward Caste Movement challenge the caste system in India?

The Backward Caste Movement, founded by Jyothirao Phule, aimed to challenge the caste system and Brahminical dominance in India by uplifting the lower castes through education and other means. The movement sought to break free from mental and religious slavery while promoting education, denouncing idol worship, and challenging traditional caste rules.