Princes and the British Raj
- Smt. Hema (Yellapragada) Botlagudur*
Princes played a very important role through out
the colonial period in multiple public and private spheres.
Many of their subjects regarded them as parental figures
(Maa-Baap) and even as deities. The British saw them as
‘collaborators’ and trusted ‘allies’ of the empire and
pronounced them ‘colleagues’ but stressed their superior
position from time to time. The position of the princes lacked
a clear cut definition, as the relationship between the British
and the Princes was full of ambiguities. This paper focuses
on the psychological pressures princes had to go through to
maintain their role as Maharaja to their people and their
role as a prince under the British paramount power.
The Concept of Kingship :
The concept of Hindu kingship ruled the minds of
people and princes in India. Princes commanded loyalty from
their people founded on the concept of kingship.
Heesterman argues, ‘no where the problematic character of
kingship is clearer than in the Indian case’.1 He further argues
that various texts unanimously assign the protection of the
people and the maintenance of the order of the world to the
king.
The Mahabharata stated that ‘whatever a king does
is right, that is a settled rule; because the protection of the
world is entrusted to him’. It further says ‘If the king does
not properly protect us, we fare very ill; we cannot perform
our religious rites according to our desire’.2 In Indian
political tradition even despotic and arbitrary rule was
considered preferable to anarchy.3
Hindus believed that the power of the goddess
resided in the throne.4 Copland observes that ‘many Hindu
scriptures hold the institution of kingship to be an integral
part of the divine cosmic order’.5 He stresses that numerous
texts support the notion of the king’s divinity and ‘the king
is generally said to be made up of different gods’.6 Therefore
a king who is enthroned is in touch with the power of the
deity and was regarded as divine. In a medieval Hindu
Kingship, Ronald Inden declared, ‘a view of the king,
handsome, in good health, bathed, anointed, crowned,
decked with ornaments, and seated in state was believed to
be auspicious and to please (ranj) the people’. 7 People
approached princes with veneration, as they were human
with somewhat divine nature. 8 The princes thus
*Leamington Spa, Warwick, UK
312
commanded a considerable amount of loyalty from their
people and this reflects in the peoples’ regard for their princes.
Peoples’ regard for princes :
Princes were addressed by their subjects as Maa-
Baap 9 (mother and father) and were considered as
intermediaries between the subjects and gods10 . Copland
points out how Maharaja of Benaras was regarded by his
subjects as ‘venerated representative of Vishwanath’ and was
greeted with ecstatic cries of ‘Har Har Mahadeva’ whenever
he passed through the town.11 In the state of Tehri Garhwal
princes were greeted as embodiments of the deity of the
shrine of Badrinath.12
Copland argues that people regarded princes as gods
whether the prince was a Hindu or a Muslim by virtue of
their office. Princely subjects (Hindu) believed that royal
commands carried ‘supernatural sanction’.13 He points to
some north Indian Muslim rulers like Hamidullah of Bhopal
who felt discomforted by the ‘uncritical adulation’ he received
from his subjects. Hamidullah told an American reporter,
‘my Moslem subjects do not worship me. However my
Hindu subjects persist in doing so, even though I am a
Moslem. According to our teachings, a ruler is blessed by
God and should be obeyed; that is all’.14 Copland points
out that most of the Muslim rulers were happy to play along.
Princes role as Maa-Baap :
Princes, to ensure that they remained acceptable to
the states’ people, relied on various measures like religious
activities, emphasising their ‘ancient’ lineages, and by
patronising men of piety and old traditions and cultural
forms. Copland further argues that princes known for their
religious learning and piety were held in high esteem. He
points out to some rulers who were very religious like Ganga
Singh of Bikaner whose single day never passed without the
ardent worship of God, Maharaja Pratap Singh of Kashmir,
‘who kept a dozen cows in garden outside his bedroom
window so he would be sure to see one first thing upon
waking up every morning’, Jey Singh of Alwar, whose ‘public
outbursts of religious fervour were legendary’ and some
Muslim rulers like the Nawab of Rampur, Mohammad
Hamid Ali Khan, who was ‘so dedicated to his Shi’a faith
that he insisted on being buried at the holy shrine of Najaf
in Iraq’.15 Copland argues that not all rulers were so religious,
‘but almost all saw the benefit of conforming to the public
Platinum Platform
religious roles expected of them.’ 16 He refers to a Cambridge-
educated student of anthropology, Mayrudhawaj Sinhji,
‘whose personal approach to religion was tinged with
scepticism; but the prince never for a movement neglected
his public religious duties or his private ritual obligations as
a Hindu’. Copland quotes Mayurdhawaj Sinhji, who says,
‘if I was thought not to be a religious person,’ he recalls,
‘what I said would have carried less weight’.17
People respected princes not just for their religious
beliefs, but also due to the old traditions and cultural forms
that they continued to maintain. Barbara Ramusack points
out that it is ‘common wisdom… that princes helped to
maintain cultural forms such as Indian dance and music
during the colonial period’. She supports this argument by
pointing to the independent government of India, which
established a ‘bureaucratic infrastructure that assumed
responsibility from the princes and distributed public
resources to promote indigenous art forms’. However, she
argues that princely activity as cultural innovators has often
been ignored and needs an in-depth study.18
Princes as Collaborators of the British :
Many people identified themselves with their
princes’ dynasty. William Burton points out that ‘in the
thousand-year-old States of Rajput States of Central India
the link between dynasty and subjects is so close, the bond
of a common tradition so strong, that the people would
find it difficult to contemplate a change of regime’.19 Alfred
Lyall argues that the Rajput states had a direct link with the
Hindu kingdoms of the pre-Muslim conquest period and
they reeked of that much-priced essence, ‘tradition’. He
points out that ‘the rulers’ pedigrees proclaimed them to be
descendents of the very god kings whose valour was
celebrated in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, while
the institutions and the practices of the princely court spoke
of a world which had not much changed in centuries and
which, in its essential elements, went back to the very ‘dawn
of history’.20 Benjamin Disraeli speaking in the House of
Commons pointed out that some of the princes sat on
thrones, which were in being ‘ when England was a Roman
province’. 21
According to Max Weber, princes exercised
‘traditional’ authority, which had its roots in the reverence
that society accords ‘the sanctity of immemorial traditions’.22
Copland opined that the British decided that the Indians
‘had a deep, inbred respect for authority especially the
authority of ‘natural’ leaders such as landlords, priests and
Brahmins.23 One of the reasons why the British retained
Indian Princes long after they established their paramountcy
in India was due to the peoples’ attachment to the old
traditions, dynasties and rule. This reflects in Curzon’s letter
to Lord Hamilton, ‘we have embarked since the Mutiny
Platinum Platform
upon the policy of sustaining the Native States and Princes.
We do so… in the interests of the people, who are supposed
to like the old traditions and dynasties and rule’.24 Lord
Lytton in a letter to Disraeli opined ‘politically speaking,
the Indian peasantry is an inert mass. If it ever moves at all,
it will move, not in obedience to its British benefactors, but
to its native chiefs and princes however tyrannical they may
be’.25 Conservative Viceroys, such as Lytton and Curzon
advocated that Indians would only respond to ‘oriental’ forms
of government, which valued hierarchy, pomp and traditional
authority.26 Although Curzon had very little respect for
princes, which is evident in his personal letters to his
friends,27 he referred to princes as “colleagues”.28 The British,
especially after the revolt of 1857, tried to find new
collaborators among traditional elites, such as the Indian
Princes. John Gallagher and Anil Seal point out that every
foreign rule in India depended upon the ‘collaboration, active
or tacit, of powerful local interests… for much of the business
of extracting tribute and keeping the peace, the British always
relied upon the acquiescence of influential Indians prepared
to work with the regime’.29 The British were impressed by
the Princes’ ability to command the loyalty of their followers
and princes had great advantage over the British. They
possessed traditional and moral authority as practising
Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and as key ritual facilitators.
Copland argues that as foreigners and Christians, the British
could only be observers of Indian religious life whereas the
princes, as practising Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, had a
personal and vested interest in the welfare of their respective
faiths.30 Princes extended protection of the state to the
religion. They conserved and nourished religion by extending
patronage to men of piety and religious learning. This is
evident in some of the princes’ royal titles. The ruler of
Bikaner bore the title Gau Brahmin Pratipalak – ‘Defender
of Cows and Brahmins’; whilst one of the dynastic titles of
the Dhrangadhra royal house was Dharma Dhurandhar –
‘Yoked to Dharma’.31 Copland stresses that this role of
princes as upholder of Dharma was always ‘implicit and
expected’.
Dilemmas of the Princes :
Although princes commanded great respect from
their people, to what extent were they autonomous and
sovereign? In recent years historians in an endeavour to rescue
the princes from hegemonic accounts of history suggest that
they maintained a considerable amount of autonomy and
preserved social formations or modified them to fit in the
new political ideas.32 David Cannadine takes such an anti-
hegemonic stance in is book Ornamentalism, stressing the
importance of the role played by class over and above the
binary racial divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’.33 He argues
that British society is complex, with ‘layered, interlocking’
313
hierarchies rather than a simple division between rich and
poor,34 and ‘when Britons turned their attention to those
wider worlds that they colonized and conquered, it was with
these views of how society was, and of how it should be
administered, very firmly embedded in their minds’.35 He
emphasises class over other analytic categories and points
out that ‘we should never forget that the British Empire was
first and foremost a class act, where individual social ordering
often took precedence over collective racial othering’.36
Manu Bhagwan, in his attempt to grant the princes
some agency, argues that it was not only British who could
handle the system to their advantage but the princes also
manipulated the system to their advantage. He argues that
on one hand, British constructed the princely states as an
oriental ‘other’ to the ‘modern’ British Indian system of
government, and on the other insisted that rulers conform
to the rules of ‘good government’, a term which encompassed
much of the ‘modern’. The princes, he argues, were adept at
manipulating such stereotypes of western modernity and
oriental tradition as a means to ward off undue British
interference. He focuses on the university movement in
Baroda and Mysore which were considered as ‘model states’,
the epitomes of ‘progressivism’ and ‘good governments’
against which all other princely states were to be measured.37
This anti-hegemonic stance of current historical
writings have managed to get princes out of a longstanding
stereotype as devoted to their own pleasure and exploiters
of their people, being mere decorative stooges of British
imperial power.38 They go a long way in recovering princes
as active subjects, presenting comprehensive and well-
researched analyses. But how far were the princes
‘independent’ and ‘autonomous’ as they suggest? The British
often intervened in the affairs of princely states inspite of
their ‘non interference’ policy and Princes’ political and
economic activities were constrained by the dictates of British
colonial governance.39 Waltraud Ernst and Biswamoy Pati
note that the British ‘reforms’ policy after 1857 represented
a ‘hegemonic shift’, with ‘emphasis now being put on
measures that appeared less interventionist, yet had
important structural consequences in the political as well as
economic spheres’.40 As Rowbotham points out that the
British like the Romans (on whom many British Victorian
imperialists modelled themselves) believed that the successful
management of empire depended not on military might but
on policing and the law. ‘Military might is useful in acquiring
colonies, but plays little part in maintaining it; the law
succeeds to that task when it is well managed. When it is
not, imperial continuity is imperiled’. 41
Ernst and Pati argue that British hegemonic strategy
encouraged princes to ‘imagine’ themselves as ‘autonomous’
inspite of their ‘political impotence’.
314
The British considered princes as their allies and
collaborators and pronounced them as ‘colleagues’ but never
treated them as sovereigns. H. H. Dodwell observes that
‘the relations of the government of India with the Indian
states offer questions of extraordinary difficulty to the
historians’.42 He notes that the facts were ‘strangely elusive’
and the position ‘full of ambiguities’. He realized that
relations from the mutiny to the Montagu-Chelmsford
reforms depended not upon the exact wording of treaties
but upon ‘the circumstances of the time’.43 Characterizing
Indian Princes as independent rulers or comparing the
inhabitants of princely states to the subjects of sovereign
nations had become merely ‘niceties of speech… devoid of
any significance’. 44 Ernst and Pati argue that British
controlled princes by their policies rather than military action
from 1858 onwards, which allowed the princes to ‘imagine’
themselves as ‘autonomous’ or ‘sovereign’. Princes were
lacking in any international status, were referred to as
sovereigns, but never treated as sovereigns by the British.
They lacked the major privileges and responsibilities of
defence, external affairs and communications. They were
referred to by their people as Maharajas and Maharanis
(Kings and Queens) but were described by the British as
mere ‘Princes’. Manu Bhagwan notes that their indigenous
titles clearly ‘challenged the royal head of Britain, providing
the additional impetus for Victoria’s title change vis-à-vis
India to Empress’.
British in their pursuit to stress the difference
between the ruler and the ruled took the aid of a pseudo-
scientific racial theory of Aryans. Indological scholars such
as Max Muller proposed a theory that ‘there was an original
Aryan homeland in Central Asia’ whose people spoke Proto-
Indo-European language. Over the course of time, they
‘branched off in two directions; one came towards Europe
and the other migrated towards East’.45 Although Max
Muller’s theory faced huge criticism in the west, British
officials and Christian missionaries took up his theory in
India, but adapted it to assert their own racial superiority.46
For Muller, Europeans and Indians were of equal
racial status, but this was something that the British in India
were not for the most part prepared to accept. They solved
this conundrum by asserting that European Aryans were
superior to Indian Aryans. It was argued that while at one
time the latter had been at the forefront of civilisation, now
they had lagged behind, so that it was the task of the British
to advance the Mission Civilisatrice in the subcontinent.47
The racial purity of the original Indian Aryans had, moreover,
been diluted by later invasions. This theory was backed by
leading British officials in India such as James Fitzjames
Stephens and Henry Maine. Maine declared that ‘all
immigrations into India after the original Aryan
Platinum Platform
immigration, and all conquest before the English conquest…
affected the people far more superficially than is assumed in
current opinion’.48 They argued that what India really
needed was the autocratic rule of a gifted minority. Stephens
assured his countrymen that they should not hesitate to
proclaim their racial superiority over ‘a people sunk in
darkness and superstition’, so as to reform them.49
This theory conferred on the British a supposedly
superior racial status; it drew a difference between ruler and
the ruled, and justified their rule. Colonial ideology
depended on the construction of an ‘other’ in whose
similarities colonialism could predicate its high ideals, its
mission of salvation, of civilizing.50 Homi Bhabha rightly
points out that this ‘other’ had to be different, ‘for it was in
this difference that the rationale for objectification, for
exploitation, for domination lay’. He terms this desire for a
recognizable but different ‘other’ ‘colonial mimicry’.51
British officials took up this theory and stressed a
need to reform Indians. The British delineated a stark
difference between the backward ‘Oriental’ people and the
‘progressive’ West. The process of ‘othering’ justified the
colonial mission to reform. The liberal tools of reforms, ‘good
government’ and ‘western education’ were put forward as
lynchpin institutions of the imperial project.52 Metcalf
argues that the revolt influenced British policy towards
education, social reforms, strengthening of the aristocracy
by the ‘pro-landlord’ policy, and to a lesser extent upon the
structure of the Indian Government.53
The British accordingly set up educational facilities
for the princes, such as Rajkumar College at Rajkot and
Rajpur, Aitchison College at Lahore, Mayo College at Ajmer,
and Daly College at Indore.54 The princes who went to these
Colleges were inculcated with ‘modern ideas’. Minority rule
provided another means to impart such a ‘modern’ education
to the princes. Most of the important states were under
minority rule at one time or the other in the later nineteenth
century. Jyaji Rao Scindia, Tukoji Rao Holkar, the Nizam
Afzal-ud-Daula all died leaving minors as their heirs.
Malharrao Gaekwad of Baroda was deposed and Sayaji Rao
III, a minor, was placed under the instruction of European
tutors appointed by the Government of India. In this way,
they were exposed to ‘modern ideas’. The British officers
who in several cases administered the states during the
minority period also seized the opportunity to set up
institutions in the states modelled upon the institution of
the British India. Through their policy of ‘reforms’, British
brought important structural changes in the states.
The British ‘tutored’ princes were well equipped
with their western education to investigate the half forgotten
treaties between their states and the British crown, which
were mostly inter pares. Princes started to stress Queen
Platinum Platform
Victoria’s proclamation that British would ‘respect the rights,
dignity and honour of native princes as our own’. In practice,
however, the princes were sovereign in only a limited sense.
For the British, characterizing them as independent rulers
or comparing the inhabitants of princely states to the subjects
of sovereign nations had become merely ‘niceties of speech
handed down from other days and now devoid of
international signi?cance’.55 Princely states were not an
independent sovereign power that could make treaties or
alliances with any other foreign power. Antony Anghie has
observed that imperial sub-polities lacked international
capacity yet possessed it by having independent territories.56
International lawyers had to face a problem whether to
classify the princely states as independent or not, as they
were ‘outside the scope of law and yet within it, lacking
international capacity and yet necessarily possessing it’.57
He further points out that ‘it was unclear how polities that
possessed and yet did not possess sovereignty ?t within a
schema pairing degrees of civilization with graduated
membership in international society’.58 The position of the
princes was anomalous.
Princes were venerated by their people and treated
as an ‘equal’ in the British treaties but were expected to profess
their loyalty to the king Emperor or the Queen-Empress of
Britain and had to prove their sincerity of such professions.
Princes had to go through tremendous psychological pressure
due to their ambiguous relation with the British and their
role as Maharaja to their people. To further examine this
point a short study of Baroda had been taken in this essay.
Chavda points out that ‘wherever and whenever Baroda tried
to talk from equal platform it had to make a retreat or lose
a cause or a right’.59
Time and again, Sayaji Rao’s reforms were limited
or compromised by measures that originated in British India.
While he was carrying on with the educational reforms in
his state, the Government of India, under Lord Curzon
passed the Indian Universities Act, which increased
governmental control over university affairs and it gave
Universities greater powers of inspection and authority over
their subsidiary colleges.60 The Baroda College of Science
was affiliated to the University in Bombay, which was under
the control of the British. Bhagwan argues that the University
Act changed the dynamic of the relationship between the
University and the college. The Act gave the University
extraordinary latitude to interfere with local policies and
initiatives.61 Bhagwan observes that this act not only affected
the affiliated colleges in the princely states but it had a fairly
devious effect on schools in princely states. This meant
systematic weakening of princely autonomy. So, a proposal
for a separate University of Baroda was made by the Baroda
state in 1908. The British blocked any such initiative. The
315
struggle to establish an independent University in Baroda References :
continued till the end of the British rule in India. The state 1
J. C. Heesterman, ‘The Conundrum of The King’s Authority’,
of Baroda established the University in 1949, one day before in J.F. Richards, Kingship & Authority In South Asia (Wisconsin
the administration of Baroda was transferred to the State of – Madison, 1978), p.1.
Bombay.62 2
Address by the maharaja of Bikaner to the Carlton Club, 29
Baroda State was also unable to gain full jurisdiction May 1935, Asiatic review, Vol. 31 (January-October, 1935), p.447
over the railways within its territories. The British asserted cited in Ian Copland, State, Community and Neighbourhood in
complete jurisdiction over all railways they constructed in Princely North India, c. 1900-1950 (New York, 2005), p.51-52.
3
the princely states. Baroda Government could not exercise J. C. Heesterman, ‘The Conundrum of The King’s Authority’,
jurisdiction even on lines lying entirely in Baroda limits.63 in J.F. Richards, Kingship & Authority In South Asia (Wisconsin
Because of this, the state lost state revenue from customs – Madison, 1978), p.52.
4
and transit duties.64 Baroda decided to construct its own Adrian Mayer, ‘Rulership and Divinity: The Case of the Modern
railways. Baroda hoped that they might be able to exercise Hindu Prince and Beyond’, in Modern Asian Studies, Vol.25, No.4
full jurisdiction at least in this respect. But Chavda notes (1991), pp.766-68.
5
that ‘all their protests harped upon the question of Copland, State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North
jurisdiction… [had] no avail.65 Copland notes that it was India, p. 52.
6
same ‘frustration story in regard to durbars initiatives on sea Heesterman, ‘The Conundrum of The King’s Authority’, in
Richards, Kingship & Authority, p.1.
tariffs, salt manufacture… over seas travel… and the 7
Ronald Inden, ‘Ritual, Authority, and Cyclic time in Hindu
resuscitated imperial service troops’.66
Kingship’, In J.E. Richards (ed) Kingship and Authority, p. 54.
Sayaji Rao felt constantly frustrated by such 8
Pamela G. Price, Kingship and political practice in colonial India
restrains. He believed that the development of the state was (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 15-16.
constrained by petty interference from the British and by 9
Charles Allen and Sharada Dwivedi, Lives of the Indian Princes
‘slavish imitation of English models of government; and by (London, 1984), p. 58.
the distrust with which the political department habitually 10
Copland, State, Community and Neighbourhood, p.50.
regarded any departure from the norm’.67 Copland notes 11
Note, n.d. on ‘some salient points about Benares State’, NAI,
that once Sayaji Rao enquired with some bitterness of Lord Rajendra Prasad Papers, 8-P/48, Cited in Ibid., p. 52.
Reay ‘whether the old Rajas who did nothing and were 12
Chief Sec., Tehri Garhwal, to PA, Tehri Garhwal, 17 January
content as a rule with women and drink, were not 1930, IOR R 1/1/2129. ibid p 52.
individually better off than the new (like himself) who labour 13
Letter from HH of Dhrangadhara to the author, 21 February
and worry themselves without after all being able to effect 1998, cited in Copland, State, Community and Neighbourhood,
much that is worth affecting?’68 . Sayaji Rao felt that there p. 53.
was a difference between the promise made by the British 14
The New York Times, 11 April 1942, Cited in Ibid, p 52.
and their practice. 15
Ibid., pp. 52-54.
Conclusion : 16
Ibid., p.54.
Princes were venerated by their people and had to 17
Ibid., p.54.
fulfil their role as Maa-Baap and gods. This veneration of 18
Barbara N. Ramusack, The Indian Princes And Their States
the people along with the concept of the kingship clearly (Cambridge, 2004), p.168.
defined the role of the Princes towards their people. In 19
William Barton, The Princes of India, 3rd Edn. ( New Delhi,
contrast to this their relationship with the British was full of 1983), p. 78.
ambiguities. Princes lacked a clear cut definition of their 20
Speech by the Maharaja of Bikaner to the ladies Carlton club,
position when it came to their relationship with the British. London, 29th may 1935, The Asiatic review, 31 (Jan-0ct 1935),
British on one hand treated them as ‘equals’ in their treaties 447 Ian Copland, The Princes of India in the endgame of Empire
but expected the princes to pay allegiance to the British crown (Cambridge, 1999), p.23.
21
as feudatories or some times as a mere subjects of the empire. Quoted in B S Cohn, ‘representing authority in Victorian
British constantly intervened in the princely states internal England’, in Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (eds), The
affairs affecting their role/duties towards their people. They invention of tradition (Cambridge, 1992), p.184 cited in Ibid.,
p.22-23.
had to go through tremendous psychological pressure as they 22
Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization
were caught between their role towards their people as
(tran. A.M. Denderson and Talcott Parsons, Glencoe Illinois,
Maharaja and deal with the British restraints at the same
1947), p.328 cited in Copland, State, Community and
time. Neighbourhood, p.51.

316 Platinum Platform

23 46
Copland, The Princes of India in the endgame, p.21-22 Joan Leopold, ‘British Applications of the Aryan Theory of
24
Adrian Sever (ed), Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely Race to India, 1850-1870’, The English Historical Review, Vol.89,
States, Vol. I (B.R. Publishing corporation, Delhi, 1985), p.347. No.352. (Jul., 1974), p.583.
47
25
Lytton to Disreli 11th may 1876 cited in lady Betty Balfour, Sumit Guha, ‘Lower Strata, Older Races and Aboriginal Peoples
Personal and literary letters of the Earl of Lytton (London 1906), : Racial Anthropology and Mythic History Past and Present’,
II, 21 cited in Copland, The Princes of India in the endgame, p.21- Journal of Asian Studies 57,2 (1998), p.427.
48
22. Ibid., p.427.
26 49
For this point see, Maria Misra, Business, Race, and Politics in Metcalf, The Atermath of Revolt, p.319.
British India, c 1850-1960 (Oxford, 1999), pp. 43-44. 50
Bhagavan, Sovereign Spheres, p. 4.
27
Letter-Curzon to Lord Hamilton, (29 Aug 1900), India Office 51
Quoted in ibid., p. 4.
Records, Hamilton Papers, Volume 17, no 38, cited in Adrian 52
Bhagwan, Sovereign Spheres, p.3. Also see for the liberals views
Sever (ed), Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely states, in Briton Thomas Metcalf, ‘Liberalism and Empire’ in Thomas
Vol I, p.347. Metcalf, Ideologies of Raj, (1998), p.28-58.
28
Speeches by Lord Curzon of Kedleston, (Calcutta: Thacker Spink, 53
Metcalf, The Atermath of Revolt.
1901) pp159-165. 54
Ernst and Pati, ‘People, Princes and Colonialism’, in Ernst and
29
John Gallagher and Anil Seal, ‘Britain and India Between the Pati (eds), India’s Princely States, p.4.
Wars’, in Modern Asian Studies, vol 15, No 3, Power, Profit and 55
The Collected Papers of John Westlake, 220 in Lauren Benton
Politics: Essays on Imperialism, Nationalism and Change in Law and History Review Fall 2008, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 598.
Twentieth Century India (1981) pp 389. 56
30
Lauren Benton ‘From international law to imperial
Copland, State, Community and Neighbourhood, p.50. constitutions; the problem of quasi sovereignty 1870-1900’, Law
31
Ibid., p.51. and History Review Fall 2008, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 597.
32
Ernst and Pati (eds.), India’s princely states, p.3. 57
Ibid., p. 597.
33
David Cannadine, Ornamentalism How British Saw Their 58
Anghie notes that the problem ‘was never satisfactorily denied
Empire (London, 2001). or resolved’, Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of
34
David Cannadine, Class in Britain (London, 1998). International Law, 81, cited in Ibid.,p. 598.
35
Cannadine, Ornamentalism, p.11. 59
Chavda, Geakwad and the British, p.16.
36
Ibid., p.10. 60
Manu Bhagavan, ‘The Rebel academy: Modernity and the
37
Manu Bhagavan, Sovereign Spheres Princes, p.5. movement for a university in princely Baroda 1908- 49’, Journal
38
The stereotype appears in Diwan Jarmani Dass, Maharaja: Lives, of Asian studies, Vol.61 No.3 (Aug., 2002), p.920.
61
Loves and Intrigues of Indian Princes (Delhi and Bombay,1970); Ibid., 921.
K L Gauba, His Highness, or the Pathology of Princes (Lahore, 62
Ibid., p.943.
1930); this point is noted in John McLeod, Sovereignty, power, 63
Chavda, Geakwad and the British, p.31.
control Politics in the States of Western India, (New Delhi, 2007); 64
British paid the compensations till 1910, but was less than
also in Ramusack, The Indian Princes And Their States,; also in expected by the Baroda Government and it went further down
Copland, The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire. after 1910.
39
Ernst and Pati, ‘People, Princes and Colonialism’, in Ernst and 65
Huzur Cutchery letter dated 25th March 1911, Raisdent’s reply
Pati (eds), India’s Princely States. of July, 1912 and Huzur Cutchery letter of Sept, 1912. P. 25
40
Ibid., p.4. cited in Ibid., p. 34.
41
Judith Rowbothom, ‘Miscarriage of Justice? Postcolonial 66
Copland, ‘Sayaji Rao Gaekwad’, in Robb & Taylor (ed.), Rule,
Reflections On the ‘Trial of the Maharajah of Baroda, 1875’, Protest, Identity, p. 29.
Liverpool Law Review, 28 (2007), p.381. 67
Ibid., p. 29.
42
H.H.Dodwell (eds.), Cambridge history of India, Vol.VI 68
Sayaji Rao to Lord Reay (Governor of Bombay), 20 Jan 1897,
(Cambridge, 1922-). quoted in Ibid., p.29
43
R. J. Moore ,Reviewed work(s): British Policy towards the Indian
States, 1905-1939 by S. R. Ashton, Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1983),
pp. 166-168.
44
Lauren Benton, ‘From international law to imperial
constitutions; the problem of quasi sovereignty 1870-1900’, Law
and History Review Fall 2008, Vol. 26, No. 3, p.3.
45
Thapar, Romila, ‘Theory of Aryan Race’, Social Scientist
(January-March, 1996), p.5.

Platinum Platform 317

 Social Justice under the Nizams
Hyderabad state is synonymous with the rule of
the Nizams. It was steeped in the medieval feudal tradi-
tions. Though, the state had the distinction of having a
unique cultural identity and religious tolerance, the in-
equalities and contradictions perpetuated in the economic
system. Muslims occupied a predominant position in the
administration, judiciary and other branches of govern-
ment but socio – religious inequalities continued in some
form or the other. With all those contradictions the state
under the Nizams tried to establish social justice.
It was free from communal troubles till 1936. This
phenomenon gradually changed from the third decade of
the twentieth century due to the rise of communal politics
of the Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen party. The Nizam also came
under their influence gradually during this period. Other-
wise Hindus and Muslims lived together happily without
any regard to religious differences and each paid respect to
other’s religious sentiments leaving unity, tolerance and
communal harmony among the people in tact.
Mundumula Narasing Rao in his book Fifty Years
of Hyderabad mentioned that “the repositories of the spe-
cial culture and traditions of Hyderabad handed down from
generations were there to prevent any damage to their
unique friendly and social atmosphere that always paraded
the city”. Different opinions could be seen on Hyderabad
state in the writings of various scholars. European and
Muslim scholars considered it as a ‘centre of oriental cul-
ture’, British considered it as a bright ‘jewel of her crown’
but the nationalists including Sardar Patel branded it as a
‘cancer in the belly of India’. However in the nineteenth
and twentieth century, the cultural and intellectual activ-
ity was stagnated under the influence of British para-
mountcy but the interaction of the British and oriental
culture of Hyderabad led to social and cultural transfor-
mation in the court as well as outside without the latter
totally losing its basic features. Indirectly even the courtly
ceremonies, court practices, culture and education came
under the continuous influence of the Raj. Western dress,
food and language were slowly adopted under the influ-
ence of the British culture; consequently catholicity in the
socio-cultural and religious life was prevalent.
*Professor (Rtd.), Dept. of History, Osmania University, Hyderabad. Former Vice-Chancellor, Kakatiya University, Warangal.
Sivananda Eminent Citizen Awardee.
318
- Dr. Y. Vaikuntham*
Traditional education was imparted in Madarasas,
Maktabs and Khanqis under Ulemas, Sufis and Muslim
scholars. The teaching was either in Arabic, Persian or Urdu.
The education of the Hindus was given in temples, Mutts,
Ghatikas , Khangi and Agrahara schools in Telugu, Marathi
and Kannada i.e.; in their mother tongue. English schools
were established. General, technical and professional
schools with western education gained importance.
The non-mulki influence increased and they were
inducted into a number of plump posts. It was resisted by
the mulkis or local intellectuals leading to friction in the
society. The general literacy in the state in 1891, 1901 and
1911 among the Muslims was 6 %, 5.46%, and 5.9%
whereas the Hindus had 3.5%, 5.46% and 2.3% respec-
tively. In 1883-84, there were 192 institutions of all cat-
egories with 11669 students, whereas by 1910-11 the in-
stitutions increased to 1036 and pupils to 66484. Most of
these institutions were in Hyderabad Suba and district head-
quarters. Even by 1951 the literacy varied between 5.09%
to 7.2 % in the countryside, though in the city of
Hyderabad the literacy rate was 25.2%. Since education
was backward, people lagged behind in socio-cultural
spheres and the process of modernization was very slow.
The Muslims were the ruling class though the ma-
jority of population belonged to the Hindu community.
caste, superstitions, domination of aristocracy, and feudal
chiefs was common in the society. Polygamy was prevalent
among the Muslims. Sati was noticeable, child marriages
were common and widow remarriages were prohibited.
However, along with a number of socio-religious organi-
zations, the government also took measures to control the
social evils. Sati in 1848 and selling of children in 1856
were banned in the state. Ikwan-us-Sufa, and Anjumen-e-
Maref under Mulla Abdul Qayyum were started to take up
educational and social reforms including the development
of social, intellectual and economic life of the people.
Agornath Chatopadyaya and his wife started Anjuman-e-
Ikwan-us Sufa( The Brotherhood Society), and Young Men’s
Improvement Society in 1879 to bring about social reforms
including emancipation of women, abolition of child mar-
riages and introduction of widow remarriages . He prac-
Platinum Platform
ticed castelessness by taking depressed classes as his do-
mestic staff. He also encouraged inter-caste marriages.
From 1891-92 Arya samaj started gymnasiums,
Ganesh utsav to bring about socio-religious awakening
under the leadership of Kamata Prasad and Mahatma
Laxman Desji. Sanatan Dharma Maha Mandal was orga-
nized by Arya Samaj under the leadership of Kesavrao
Koratkar, Satwalekar and Aghoranath Chatopadyaya. Theo-
sophical society was established in the last decade of the
nineteenth century in Hyderabad.
Encouragement of non-mulkis in various services
stimulated education and they could bring about educa-
tional reforms. Salar Jung 1 invited some very qualified
non-mulkies from Aligarh, Madras and started compul-
sory education for the children of landlords, Inamdars and
Jagirdars.
Mulla Abdul Qayyums book A Plea for Compul-
sory Education written in 1894 was a landmark in the de-
velopment of education in the state, though this proposal
was rejected on trivial grounds by the state stating that it
will create anti-government feelings and social protests.
However, number of schools and second grade colleges
came into existence including Darul-ulum High School,
City High School, Chadarghat High School, Madaras-e-
Aliya, etc. Along with them a number of missionary schools
like All Saints High School, Grammar School, Wesley
School, St. Anne’s Convent, Keys High School, Mahboob
College, Nizam College etc. were established. All these in-
stitutions helped in the growth of intellectual awakening
in the state. These institutions were established at Suba
headquarters i.e. Aurangabad, Gulbarga, in addition to a
few other towns.
Though Urdu was the state language from 1884
replacing Persian, English and vernacular schools provided
greater opportunities for education of all including the vil-
lagers. All these efforts led to the establishment of Osmania
University in 1918.
The libraries were the store houses of knowledge
and Library Movement became a cultural movement lead-
ing to renaissance in the state. State Library in 1892, Sri
Krishnadevaraya Andhra Bhasa Nilayam 1901, Vignana
Chandrika Mandali in 1906, Sri Raja Raja Narendra Basha
Nilayam in 1904 at Hanamakonda, Andhra Samvardani
Library at Secunderabad in 1905 helped not only intellec-
tual awakening but also social justice in the state.
However, social, intellectual and cultural activi-
ties got stimulus as a result of these movements. Begari or
vetti chakiri was removed through a Gasti on 30-3-19232
Platinum Platform
as the Nizam’s birth day gift. In 1933 government prohib-
ited extracting any work without remuneration. Ryot
Sangams and Weavers Associations came into existence.
Andhra Kendra Janasangam in 1921 and Andhra Maha
Sabha in 1930, Maharastra Parishad in 1936, and Karnataka
Parishad in 1937 were started to take up cultural activities
and peoples problems to eradicate social evils and to fight
for social and economic justice.
Andhra Kendra Janasangam has published a num-
ber of booklets to eradicate exploitation and to establish
some sort of social justice. They include ‘Vartha
Swatantram’, ‘Vetti Chakiri’, ‘Mohtarfa-Maggapupannu’,
‘Nazarana Janaparignanamu’, ‘Nizamrastra Andhrulu’,
‘Nizam Rastra Abhivrudhimargalu’, etc. They gave impe-
tus to the activities of student community to support and
promote social, cultural, economic and political advance-
ment in the state. Ravi Narayana Reddy called all those
organizations stating that there was no difference between
political and non-political movements as these organiza-
tions sub-served the national awakening.
In the first quarter of the twentieth century the
institution of Devadasi system, supplying of dancing girls
to officers on tour, practice of vetti etc have been abol-
ished. Educational institutions were established and thrown
open to all in addition to Jagirdars, and aristocratic fami-
lies. The rise of Arya Samaj and Ittihad-ul- Musalmeen led
to the rise of communal troubles in the third quarter of the
twentieth century. However, the Hindus who constituted
86% of the population were not considered for appoint-
ment to high positions whereas the Muslims who were a
minority were appointed to the plump posts of adminis-
tration. Therefore he was criticized as a blind ruler with
‘one eye’ though the Nizam claimed both Hindus and
Muslims as his two eyes. In the twentieth century the rul-
ers gave preference to maintain social order by halting the
institutions of social change in the state and promoted
Muslim aristocracy and non-mulkis in the critical areas of
power. This was the beginning of dual policy of preferen-
tial treatment to Muslims which led to greater tensions in
the later part of the Nizams rule ie; between 1930s and
1940s. When the non-mulkis were employed in the state
services the Urdu and vernacular press protested against
this policy. As a result of which “the avenues of the state
services were widely opened to Hyderabadees”. In 1933
government issued a Firman giving preference to all edu-
cated and efficient mulkis in the services.
In his message on the Silver Jubilee year of coro-
nation, the last Nizam visualized the concept of social jus-
tice as his vision. He commented that “ I am deeply inter-
319
ested in village uplift. It is my wish that the life of the References
villagers may become increasingly prosperous…prosperity
1. Bawa.V.K; The Last Nizam ; The Life and Times of
of the country is in the smiling fields and contended peas-
Mir Osman Ali Khan, penguin books,1992.
antry rather than in stately edifices”. Thus while support-
ing absolute monarchy he had sympathy for his subjects 2. Hanumantha Rao Madapati; Telangana
especially common people. Though, he lacked any knowl- Andhrodyamamu, 2 vols, Hyderabad,1949.
edge of social and political philosophy, he mingled with 3. Narasinga Rao M; Fifty Years of Hyderabad,
the common, poor working people of the court. Hyderabad,1977.
The sixth Nizam Mir Mahboob Ali Khan was 4. Sarojini Regani; Anglo- Nizam Relations,1724-
more broad minded in accommodating Hindus and Mus- 1857;Secunderabad,1963.
lims in the power echelons. Also he moved closer to the
majority and respected the sentiments of the Hindu popu- 5. Sheela Raj ;Medievalism to Modernism: Socio- Eco-
lation in the performance of social and religious functions nomic and Cultural History of Hyderabad,1859-
leading to greater social harmony when compared to that 1911;Bombay,1987.
of the last Nizam. He observed Hindu rituals and performed 6. Syed Abid Hasan, Whither Hyderabad?A Brief Study
puja as per Hindu practices during 1908 floods. All this of some of the outstanding problems of the premier
explains that the sixth Nizam gave importance to social Indian State, Madras,1935.
justice under his rule.
7. Vaikuntham.Y;Peoples Movements in the Princely
The last Nizam gave importance for the manage- states,Manohar,Delhi,2004.
ment of finances, water resource management, including
8. Vaikuntham.Y;Water Resource Management ;Ripar-
irrigation, communications, including railways and exploi-
ian Conflicts,Feudal Chiefs and Hyderabad state,
tation of the natural resources for the development of the
Manohar, Delhi, 2010.
state and the society. The administrative reforms could not
resolve the fundamental differences in the economic and 9. Vasikuntham. Y; State ,Economy and Social Trans-
social structure of the state and the society. Egalitarian so- formation: Hyderabad State, Manohar, Delhi,2002.
cial and economic structures could not be evolved. In fact
10. Zubeda Yazdani; The Seventh Nizam, The Fallen
there were two social segments in the Nizams dominions
Empire , CUP,1985
ie; those who live in Diwani areas and those who live in
jagir and paigah areas. In Diwani areas some socio-eco-
nomic progress was noticeable whereas in jagir areas noth-
ing but feudal exploitation of men and matters dominated.
It gave rise to Comrades Association and left movements
in the state in 1940s which culminated in the Telangana
Armed Struggle against the feudal atrocities. It is pertinent
here to recall Syed Abid Hasan’s comment on the socio-
political situation in the state at that time. He said that
“outwardly it presents a picture of peace and contentment.
And if you scratch the surface you will begin to see the sore
of discontentment that is robbing every Hyderabadee of
happiness”.
Notwithstanding the political conflicts that
marked after 1945, there was no hostility between Mus-
lims and Hindus in Hyderabad state i.e. between the rul-
ers and the ruled. It clearly demonstrates that there might
have been some issues of intolerance between the majority
population and the ruling community and the rulers, but
overall social justice was noticeable in Hyderabad state
under the Nizams in the nineteenth and twentieth centu-
ries.

320 Platinum Platform

 The Rise of Telugu Consciousness in Hyderabad
The Movement for Telugu was organized by the
people living in the eight districts of Hyderabad with an
intention to awaken Telugu consciousness and to fight for
the political rights. An attempt is made in this article to
explain the Rise of Telugu Consciousness in Hyderabad
during the various phases of the National Movement.
The Movement for Telugu, especially meant for
the improvement of socio-economic, cultural and politi-
cal conditions and to prepare them for the challenges of
modernization. Such kind of movement was required dur-
ing the autocratic rule of the Nizam.
The Hyderabad State was under the Nizam who
was a Muslim and the majority of his subjects were Hin-
dus. In those circumstances, it was very difficult to launch
a movement in Hyderabad. During the Nizam’s rule, the
region was extremely backward and the people of
Hyderabad were groaning under the accumulated weight
of poverty, ignorance, oppression and exploitation. How-
ever, no serious attempt was made by the nationalists to
build up a movement against the Nizam and the British
for fear of repression.
Since the population of the State was overwhelm-
ingly rural in character, the bulk of the Hindu population
was depending on agriculture. The majority of the rural
population was either landless labourers or small peasants,
and the agricultural labourers were subjected to exploita-
tion under the existing system of native feudalism. Due to
the poverty and ungainful employment, they were mostly
reeling under stress and strain. The Muslim population
who were mostly employed by the Nizam’s government
were generally urban in character. By virtue of being the
ruling class, the Muslims generally enjoyed certain privi-
leges in the society. But the majority of them were also
poor. Their economic conditions were also far from satis-
factory even under the Nizam. Thus, by the end of 19th
century, the Hyderabad State became a vulnerable ground
for launching people’s agitation.
True to its rural character, the Hyderabad State
offered no facilities for educating the masses. A few schools
which were opened in Hyderabad city by the end of 19th
century were only serving the needs of the children be-
*Professor, Dept. of Ancient Indian History, Archaeology & Culture, Osmani University, Hyderabad.
Platinum Platform
- Dr. V. Kishan Rao*
longing to the rich and the upper middle class families of
the Muslim community and few rich Hindu families.
Though the Nizam allowed Western education to be
adopted in these institutions, he cleverly introduced Urdu
language as the medium of instruction to dispense with
English language in his State and also to kept the Hindus
out of the portals of education, as most of the Hindus were
either Telugus or Kannadigas or Maratties. Even the Hin-
dus who wanted to admit their children to these institu-
tions had no choice but to accept the imposition of Urdu
which was the official language of the State. However, the
Western education brought a change in the thinking of the
educated class which undoubtedly caused the rise of Telugu
consciousness in the state at the turn of the present
century.
When the Indian National Congress was formed
in 1885, a few citizens among the intellectual elite drawn
from the upper middle class strata of society welcomed its
formation. They were Dr.Aghornath Chattopadhyaya,
Mulla Abdul Qayum (the first Muslim leader from
Hyderabad to join the Indian National Congress),
Ramachandra Pillai, a lawyer, and Moheb Hussain and
others. They played a prominent role in moulding public
opinion among the educated few in the State.
The Arya Samaj was established in Hyderabad city
in 1892. The Arya Samaj leaders were prosecuted by the
Government for being ‘non-Mulkies’ (outsiders) and al-
leged that they were involved in anti-Muslim activities. Arya
Samaj leaders like Nityananda Brahmachari and
Vishwananda Saraswati were not only sent to prison but
even their pleader, Ramachandra Pillai was also placed
under Police custody for two hours when he came to visit
them in prison. Notwithstanding these obstacles, the Arya
Samaj carried on its activities in the State and some of the
notable persons who joined the Arya Samaj Movement in
1896 were Keshav Rao Koratkar, Damodar Satvalekar.
Dr. Aghornath Chattopadhyaya also gave encouragement
to the Arya Samaj Movement. Falling in line with the In-
dian Pattern set up by Bala Gangadhar Tilak Ganesh Utsav
Celebrations were also started in Hyderabad in 1895.
The Maharashtra leaders in Hyderabad like Pandit
Keshav Rao Kuratkar, Vaman Ramchandra Naik and
321
Ganpat Rao Hardikar founded the Vivek Vardhini Pathasala
in 1906 which later on developed into a leading educa-
tional institution in the city. In 1907, Vithal Rao
Devalgaonkar, Keshava Rao Kortkar and Garuda Rao
started the Nutan Vidyalaya High School in Gulbarga. The
Nutan Vidyalaya High School played a prominent role in
spreading education in the Karnataka region of the
Hyderabad state. The founding of the institution marked
the beginning of the Cultural Revival in Hyderabad.
In spite of the handicaps, the people of Hyderabad
could not remain unaffected by the nationalist sentiment
which had widely spread over British India. The national-
ist impulse to create a democratic and welfare state was
active in British India while it was a bit delayed in the
Princely State of the Nizam. The task of preparing the
Hyderabad State for political and social upliftment was
found to be a stupendous one. The princes were deliber-
ately nursed by the British for many years as obstructers to
collective national progress. This policy paid great divi-
dends to the British in dealing with anti-British forces.
About this time, several cultural institutions came
into existence. Leaders like Komarraju Laxmana Rao,
Gadicherla Harisarvothama Rao, Ayyadevara Kaleshwar
Rao, inspired by the renaissance movement in Andhra dur-
ing the Vandemataram movement, wanted to forge strong
cultural links with the people of Telangana. The people of
Hyderabad could not remain unaffected by the breeze of
national renaissance in British India. The first Telugu Li-
brary, namely, Sri Krishna Devaraya Andhra Bhasha
Nilayam was started in Hyderabad in 1901. During the
same period two other libraries, Sri Raja Raja Narendra
Andhra Bhasha Nilayam and the Andhra Samvardhini Li-
brary were founded in 1904 and 1905 at Hanamkonda
and Secunderabad respectively. Besides that some more li-
braries were started in Telangana region. viz; Samskrutha
Kala Samvardini, Secundrabad, Mahaboobiya Andhra
Bhasha Nilayam, Errupalem in Warangal District, Sri Siddi
Malleshwara Grandhalayam, Ramidicherla, Warangal dis-
trict, Sri Andhra Vignana Prakashini Grandha Nilayam,
Suryapet, Nalgonda district, Andhra Saraswathi Grandha
Nilayam, Nalgonda, Sri Shabdanushasnandhra Bhasha
Mandiram, Warangal and Sri Maduri Raghavulu
Bhashakalpavalli, Secundrabad etc
As early as in 1913, the Social Reform Movement
was initiated by the ‘Humanitarian League’. The founder-
President of the League, Raja Bal Mukund was a pioneer
in the Harijan Upliftment activity in the State. The
Hyderabad Social Service League was established in 1915
which held conferences in different parts of the State to
stress the need for Social Reform. Another conference of
322
Social Reform was held in Hyderabad on November 11-
12, 1921 under the Presidentship of Maharshi Karve. The
proceedings were conducted in English, Urdu and Marathi
languages since most of its members were Maharashtrians.
This had been protested by the Telugu speaking members
under the leadership of Venkat Rao Alampalli which has
given rise to founding of ‘Andhra Jana Sangh’ in 1921.
The ‘Andhra Jana Sangh’ which was formed with
an initial membership of only twelve on the very night of
November 12, 1921, when Venkat Rao Alampalli, an ad-
vocate was hooted down for moving a resolution in Telugu.
Its membership increased very soon to one hundred. The
Andhra Jana Sangham was formed with Tekmal Ranga Rao
as its Secretary. The association was to be called “Nizam
Rashtra Andhra Jana Sangham”, with an intention of work-
ing for the progress of the Telugus, convening public meet-
ings and allied activities and every Telugu of the State whose
age was not less than eighteen and who could read and
write could become a member of this association. When
the membership rose to one hundred, a regular managing
committee of 15 members with Raja Rajagopala Reddy,
Barrister, as President and Shri Madapati Hanumantha Rao
as the Secretary was elected. As an allied wing of this body
a research society called Andhra Parishodhak Mandali was
also established.
The prominent among them were Madapati
Hanumantha Rao, Burrgula Rama Krishna Rao,
M.Narsinga Rao and Adiraju Veerabhadra Rao. The first
meeting was held at Hyderabad under the Chairmanship
of Konda Venkat Ranga Reddy on February, 1922. In this
meeting the name of the Andhra Jana Sangh was confirmed
and Madapati Hanumanth Rao was elected its Secretary.
Madapati proved to be the guiding spirit of the movement
for the social and cultural upliftment of the Telangana
people. This was the beginning of the rise of Telugu Con-
sciousness in the Hyderabad State. A number of sister as-
sociations were established all over Telangana. The neces-
sity of getting them federated with a central body was keenly
felt. Consequently, the ‘Andhra Jana Kendra Sangham’ was
formed at Hyderabad. The first meeting of the central body
was held at Hanumakonda on the 1st April, 1924 and it
was largely attended by representatives from Hyderabad,
Secunderabad, Warangal and Khammam. This Commit-
tee was authorised to frame a constitution which was
adopted on the 27th of April 1924 at Hyderabad. The aims
and objects of the Committee were further expanded, and
they were : To establish libraries and reading rooms, to
help and encourage students, to support scholars, to col-
lect manuscripts and to conduct research, to spread knowl-
edge through hand-bills, booklets, and public speeches, to
Platinum Platform
propagate Telugu, to encourage fine arts and physical cul-
ture and to help the helpless
Thus, the Andhra Jana Sangh decided to achieve
its aim of promoting the social, economic and cultural re-
vival of the people of Telangana by adopting measures that
would bring about a general enlightenment among the
people. Akin to that some of the books (small booklets)
that were published by the Andhra Jana Sangh were Nizam
Andhra Rashtra Prasamsa, eulogizing the Ancient glory and
History of Andhras, the Nizam Rashtra Andhras, Nizam
Rashtrapu Ahbivruddi Margamulu, (Ways of Improvement),
Mahatarpa – Maggamu Pannu, Vettichakiri, Nizam
Rashtrapu Jana Pariganamu etc. It also brought out small
booklets entitled: the Vartaka Swatantriyamu (freedom of
the merchants) to bring about a general awakening amoung
the merchant community (Komatis or the Vaishya) who were
greatly exploited by the State officers and other officials
while on tour in the districts and villages. To encourage
the efforts of the Andhra Jana Sangh, news Papers like
Nilagiri Patrika, Telugu Patrika and ‘Golkonda Patrika also
came on to the scene. Due to the encouragement it gave to
Telugu scholars and historians, a conference was also held
on the ‘History of Kakatiyas’ at Warangal in 1930 and a
journal entitled the Kakatiya Sanchika containing valuable
research articles on the history of the Telugu people was
brought out.
On account of the encouragement they received
from the Andhra Jana Sangh, the merchants in Telangana
formed an association known as the Merchants Association
to protest against the exploitation by the bureaucracy and
thereby indirectly joined hands with the Andhra Jana Sangh
in its fight against the autocracy of the Government. Further,
the Andhra Jana Sangh also carried on a campaign against
Vetti Chakiri and for the emancipation of the Balutadars.
On account of this the Nizam’s Government issued a
Firman in 1923 forbidding the employment of Balutadars
by the people in general.
The Library movement started by the Andhra
Jana Sangh spread rapidly and its first conference was held
in Madhira in 1925. Seeing the popularity of the move-
ment the Government at first attempted to close down the
libraries on the pretext that the prior permission of the
concerned district officers was not obtained for starting
the libraries. In 1927, they also tried to prevent the con-
vening of the Suryapet Andhra Jana Sangh Conference
along with the Second Library Conference saying that the
permission of the Executive Council had to be obtained
for these conferences. The Reception Committee of the
Suryapet Jana Sangh had to file an appeal to the court to
get the permission for the conference.
Platinum Platform
The Andhra Jana Sangh from 1928 onwards took
up the cause of women’s education. Due to its efforts the
Andhra Balika High School was founded in 1928 and the
first batch of girls studying in the Telugu medium were
made to appear at the Matriculation examination 1934. In
the beginning the Osmania University refused to recognise
the Andhra Balika High School on the plea that though
the policy of the Osmania University was to encourage the
pursuit of education in the mother tongue, it considered
only Urdu as mother tongue. However, Maharshi Karve
came to the rescue of the Andhra Jana Sangh and the first
batch of girl students in the Telugu medium appeared for
their examination in the Karve institute.
Attempts of the Sangham to establish schools in
villages were also confronted with similar difficulties. Dur-
ing one year, nearly four thousand schools opened by the
Sangham were to be closed. So, the organisers of the
Sangham had to concentrate their attention on properly
conducting the schools that existed already. Even with such
a strain, the workers of the Sangham continued their ef-
forts to create awakening in the Telangana region. Twelve
Telugu booklets written in easy simple style intelligible to
an ordinary villager priced at one anna each were placed
within the reach of all. The Andhra Jana Kendra Sangham
never enjoyed the goodwill of the Government which re-
peatedly denied permission for holding purely educational
and library meetings and conferences. In the initial stages,
the Sangham did not have any political bias but the repres-
sive policy of the Government generated a spirit of resis-
tance among them. The Andhra Mahasabha had begun as
an organization of moderate Telugu nationalism. Though
it had right from the beginning taken up proposals for eco-
nomic and social reforms, it was far from demanding an
overall restructuring of the existing order.
Margrit Pernau’s book refers to the Andhra
Mahasabha as an organization of Moderate Telugu Nation-
alism. Though it had from the beginning taken up propos-
als for economic and social reforms, it was far from de-
manding an overall restructuring of the existing order.
Andhra Mahasabha Conferences:
The year 1930 brought in a great upsurge through-
out India. As a consequence of this the first Andhra
Mahasabha Conference took place on 3, 4 and 5th March
1930 at Jogipet in Medak district, under the presidentship
of Suravaram Pratapa Reddy, a popular writer, poet and
editor of ‘Golkonda Pathrika’. The movement started by
the Andhra Jana Sangh spread rapidly gaining its strength
day by day. In this conference, the Andhra Jana Sangh con-
verted itself into the Andhra Mahasabha. Nawab Ali Yavar
323
Jung, Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, asking Dr.
Ramakrishna Rao, “Why the name Andhra Maha Sabha?.
When it could as well be called the Telangana Maha Sabha”.
The Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen party which was formed in 1927
also warned the Nizam’s Government that the Andhra
Mahasabha was hood-winking the Government by its
apprently modest demeanour while in fact heading a subtle
and dangerous movement in the State. Seeing the activities
of the Telugu people under the aegis of the Andhra
Mahasabha, the Maharashtrians and the Kannadigars also
founded the Maharashtra Parishad and the Karnatak
Parishad in 1937. The nationalist members of the Andhra
Mahasabh conference held their thirteenth session(last) at
Kandi village in Medak district under Jamalapuram Keshava
Rao in May 1946. On the whole, the Andhra Mahasabha
organised 13th sessions in 17 years
Andhra Mahila Mahasabha Conferences:
One of the special features of the first Andhra
Mahasabha was that a Women’s Conference called the
Andhra Mahila Mahasabha Conference was held along
with the Andhra Mahasabha from 1930 onwards at vari-
ous places and discussed socio and cultural aspects of
women. This feature of holding the Andhra Mahila Sabha
Conference side by side with the Andhra Maha Sabha con-
ference was continued up to the year 1942, when, during
the 9th Conference at Dharmavaram, the women members
felt strong and confident enough to have their own sepa-
rate conference.
The conference was keenly conscious of the ne-
cessity of rewriting the history of Telangana and the people
in general were requested to give every possible help to
researchers when they approached them.
Elimination of Urdu as the medium of instruc-
tion for Hindu girls was very strongly recommended. People
were also anxious to see that Government encouraged tech-
nological and agricultural education among the masses.
The resolution was adopted unanimously that the
library moverment as it was prevalent in a State like Baroda
should be introduced in the whole State so that the miser-
able percentage of literacy would be enhanced.
A resolution of the previous session was reiterated
according to which people were requested to collect manu-
scripts and other materials in the form of pieces of art for
rewriting the history of the country,
Thus, Rise of Telugu Consciousness has paved way
for the National Movement in the Hyderabad State liber-
ated the people from the autocratic rule of the Nizam, af-
ter a great struggle.
324
References:
1. Anney, M.S., The Hyderabad Administration, the
Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Delhi, 1938.
2. Hanumantha Rao, Madapati Telangana Andhrodhyamamu
(Part-I & II (Telugu), Sri Vani Mudranalayam, Sultanbazar,
Hyderabad-Deccan, 1949
3. Hanumantha Rao, Madapati Telangana Andhrodhyamamu
(Part-I & II) (Telugu) (edited) by M.L.Narasimha Rao,
Telugu Vishwa Vidyalayam, Public Gardens, Hyderabad,
1995
4. Khan, Mohd.Abdul Waheed, Brief History of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1972.
5. Kishan Rao, V., Swami Ramananda Tirtha and the
Hyderabad Freedom Struggle, Sri Sai Publishers, Warangal,
1988.
6. Kondavalli Venkata Seshagiri Rao & Heeralal Moriya,
Hyderabad Samsthanamlo Rajakeeyavikasam - Andhra
Maha Sabhaadhyakshulu (Telugu), Kodad, 1985
7. Margrit Pernau, The Passing of Patrimonialism; Politics and
Political Culture in Hyderabad,1911-1948, Manoher Pub-
lishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2000
8. Manikya Rao, Veldurthi ‘Hyderabad Swathanthrodhyama
Charithra (Telugu), Published by Swathanthrodhyama
Charithra, Gandhibhavan, Hyderabad, 1992
9. Narasimha Rao, M.L, Hyderabad Swanthanthrodyamamu,
(Telugu), Sri Sai Publications, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad,
1998
10. Narayan Reddy, Ravi, ‘Heroic Telangana Reminiscenses and
Experiences’, New Delhi, 1973
11. Pratap Reddy, Suravaram, Andhrula Sanghika Charitra,
(Telugu), Andhra Saraswatha Parishad, Hyderabad, 1950.
12. Ramchander Rao Mandumula, ‘Telangana
Andhraodyamam’, Swatantra, Vol.No.IV, 1956
13. Sarojini Regani, ‘The Movement for the Social and Cul-
tural Revival of Telangana in the Erstwhile Hyderabad, Some
Aspects of Deccan History, 1975.
14. Shatajayanthi Utsava Samithi, 22-3-1985, Andhra Pitamaha
Madapati Hanumantha Rao Jeevitha Charithra,
Ramalingam, D’s article on ‘Andhrodhyama Nirmata’
15. Swami Ramananda Tirtha, ‘Memoirs of Hyderabad Free-
dom Struggle, Popular Prakshan, Bombay, 1967.
16. Syed Dawood Ashraf, Dr; The Seventh Nizam of
Hyderabad, An Achival Appraisal, Moazam Hussain Foun-
dation, Hyderabad, 2002
17. The Freedom Struggle in Hyderabad, Relevant Volumes,
Hyderabad, 1956
18. Vaikuntham, Y., ‘Public Awakening in the Nizam’s Domin-
ion in the second half of the 19th Century, Ithihas, Journal
of the State Archives, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Vol.VI,
July-December 1978
*****
Platinum Platform
 ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO – „ѨÉèí∞`åfiÅ∞, <å_»∞, <Õ_»∞
ã¨=∂[OÖ’x H˘xfl =~åæÅ „Ѩ[Å∞ `«=∞ rq`åx Hõ=ã¨~"° ∞≥ #ÿ
Hõh㨠„áê^äqŒ ∞Hõ ™œHõ~åºÅ#∞ (J=ã¨~åÅ#∞) ‰õÄ_® f~°∞ÛHÀÖËx ã≤u÷ x
¿Ñ^ŒiHõO JO\Ï~°∞. ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO QÆ∞iOz =ÚYºOQÍ Ô~O_»∞ ~°HÍÅ
ÉèÏ=#Å∞ L<åfl~Ú. XHõ\ ˜ ™ê¿ÑHõ∆ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO (Relative Poverty),
~Ô O_Àk x~°¿ÑHõ∆ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO (Absolute Poverty).1 ^ÕâO◊ Ö’x qaè#fl
=~åæÅ „Ѩ[Å P^•Ü«∂xfl QÍx, qxÜ≥∂QÆ =ºÜ«∂xfl QÍx áÈeÛ,
`«‰õΩ¯= P^•Ü«∂xfl á⁄O^Œ∞`«∞#fl ÖË^• `«‰õΩ¯= qxÜ≥∂QÆ =ºÜ«∞O
KÕã¨∞Î#fl "åix ¿Ñ^Œ"å~°∞QÍ ÖˇH˜¯™êÎ~°∞. D q^èŒ"≥∞ÿ# ¿Ñ^ŒiHÍxfl
™ê¿ÑHõ∆ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO JO\Ï~°∞.
^Õâ◊OÖ’x „Ѩ[Å Hõh㨠J=ã¨~åŠѨi=∂}ÏÅ#∞
=ÚO^Œ∞QÍ x~°‚~ÚOz# `«~åfi`« =∂Ô~¯\ò ^èŒ~°Å P^è•~°O`À "å\˜
qÅ∞=#∞ JOK«<å"Õã≤ Hõh㨠r=<å=ã¨~° qxÜ≥∂QÍxfl x~åúi™êÎ~∞° .
D Hõh㨠r=<å^è•~° qxÜ≥∂QÆ=ºÜ«∞ ™ê÷~Úx ^•i„^Œº~ˆ Y JO\Ï~°∞.
D q^èŒ"≥∞ÿ# Hõh㨠J=ã¨~° =ºÜ«∂xfl ‰õÄ_» KÕÜ«∞ÖËx ã≤÷ux x~°¿ÑHõ∆
¿Ñ^ŒiHõO JO\Ï~°∞. ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊OÖ’x ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO x~°¿ÑHõ∆ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO.
™ê¿ÑHõ∆ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõ ÉèÏ=# ã¨OѨ#fl ^ÕâßÅÖ’ LѨÜ≥∂y™êÎ~°∞.
ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ Ö’ ¿Ñ^ŒÅ ã¨OYº#∞ ^•i„^Œº~ˆ Y P^è•~°OQÍ x~°~‚ Ú™êÎ~∞° .
XHõ =∞x+≤ =∞#∞QÆ_»‰õΩ J=ã¨~°"≥∞ÿ# PǨ~°Ñ¨Ù ÔHÖ’sÅ =∂Ô~¯\ò
„^Œ=º qÅ∞= P^è•~°OQÍ qxÜ≥∂QÆ^•~°∞x `«Åã¨i =ºÜ«∂xfl
x~°~‚ Ú™êÎ~∞° . W^Õ ^•i„^Œº~ˆ Y (Poverty Line). Z=i P^•Ü«∞™ê÷~Ú
D Ѩi=∂}O Hõ#fl `«‰õΩ¯=QÍ =ÙO@∞O^À "åix ^•i„^Œºˆ~Y‰õΩ
kQÆ∞=# =Ù#fl@∞¡ ѨiQÆ}˜™êÎ~°∞.
D "åºã¨OÖ’ P^è∞Œ xHõÜÚ« QÆOÖ’ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO Ü≥∞_»Å „ѨÉ∞íè `åfiÅ∞
=º=ǨÏiOz# f~°∞ K«iÛOK«|_ç#k.
„a\˜+¨µ áêÅ#‰õΩ ѨÓ~°fiO ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ PiúHõ ã≤÷u JѨÊ\˜
„ѨѨOK« ã≤÷uÖ’ „Ѩ=ÚY ™ê÷#OÖ’ =ÙO_ç#k. ѨÓ~°fi HÍÅѨ٠ÉèÏ~°`«
ã¨OѨ^Œ#∞ QÆ∂iÛ W`«~° ^Õâ◊"åã¨∞Å∞ Hõ^äŒÅ∞QÍ „"åâß~°∞. WÖÏO\˜
"åxÖ’ H˘xfl Juâ◊Ü≥∂‰õΩÎÅ∞, =º`庙êÅ∞ LO\ÏÜ«∞#∞‰õΩ<åfl XHõ
ã¨OQÆu QÆ=∞xOK«=K«∞Û. 17, 18= â◊`å|ÌOÖ’ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊OÖ’
ã¨OKå~°O KÕã≤# "å~°∞ <Õ\ ˜ ^Œ∞ã≤÷uH˜ U=∂„`«O ã¨O|O^èŒO ÖËx
„QÍ=∞ ™œÉèÏQͺxfl Ѩ^ÕѨ^Õ K≥|∞`«∂ =KåÛ~°∞. 17= â◊`åaÌÖ’
ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ Ö’ `«# Ü«∂„`«#∞ QÆ∞iOz ~åã¨∂Î \Ï=sfl~ü WÖÏ J<åfl_»∞
''=∞s z#fl ѨÖÖ¡ˇ ’ ‰õÄ_® aÜ«∞ºO, Ñ≤O_ç, "≥#fl, z‰õΩ¯_»∞ "≥Ú^ŒÅ~Ú#
* Asst. Professor, Dept. of History, Kakatiya University, Warangal.
Platinum Platform
– _®II Ñ≤. ã¨^•#O^ŒO*
HÍÜ«∞QÆ∂~°Å∞, K«ÔH¯~°, ~°Hõ~°HÍÖˇ·# q∞~îå~ÚÅ∞ HÍ=Åã≤#xfl
^˘~°‰õΩ`å~Ú——.2
"≥hflã¨∞ „áêO`åxH˜ K≥Ok# =∞<Àp 17= â◊`å|ÌOÖ’
B~°OQÆ*Ë|∞‰õΩ „Ѩ^è•# "≥·^Œ∞º_»∞QÍ Ñ¨xKÕâß_»∞. PÜ«∞# `«#
'㨇 $`«∞Å—Ö’ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ ™œÉèÏQÍxfl ~å¢ëêìÅ"åsQÍ =i‚OKå_»∞.
JO^Œ∞Ö’ ɡOQÍÅ∞ fã¨∞HÀ=K«∞Û.
''"≥ÚQÆÖò ~å*ϺÅxflO\˜ Ö’#∂ ɡOQÍÖò#∞ QÆ∂iÛ „á¶ê<£ûÖ’
ÉÏQÍ `≥Å∞ã¨∞ JHõ¯_ç #∞O_ç =ã¨∞=Î ÙÅ∞ Ü«¸~ÀѨىõΩ ã¨~Ñ° ~¨¶ å HÍ=_»O,
ɡOQÍÖò ã¨=∞$kúH˜ x^Œ~°≈#O. DlѨÙìHõO>Ë ÉˇOQÍÖò ^ÕxÖ’#∂
fã≤áÈ^Œh, ÃÑ·QÍ ã≤Öò¯, #∂Å∞ |@ìÅ∞, K«ÔH¯~°, he=∞O^Œ∞
"≥Ú^ŒÅQÆ∞"åxÖ’ ^•xx q∞OK«∞`«∞O^Œh =∞#O K≥ѨÊ=K«∞Û. WHõ¯_»
Ѩà◊√§, ѨѨC^è•<åºÅ∞, ^è•<åºÅ∞, =∞le<£Å∞ [Å`å~°∞ Ѩ@∞ì|@ìÅ∞
"≥Ú^ŒÖˇ·# Jxfl =ã¨∞Î=ÙÅ∂ J`«ºkèHõOQÍ L<åfl~Ú——.3
JÖψQ „ÃÑO¶ z Ü«∂„u‰õΩ_»∞ ɡsfl 1660 ã¨OIIÖ’ ~Ô O_»∞™ê~°∞¡
ɡOQÍÖò "≥àϧ_»∞. "≥ÚQÆÖò ™ê„=∂[ºO Ѩ`«<åxH˜ =ÚO^Œ∞ `å#∞
K«∂z# ã¨OQÆ`«∞Å∞ „"åâß_»∞. ɡOQÍÖò #∞O_ç P<å_»∞ ZQÆ∞=∞`«=Ù
`«∞#fl =ã¨∞Î=ÙÅ∞, [O`«∞ã¨OѨ^Œ, <ÒHÍÜ«∂<åxH˜ ѨO@ á⁄ÖÏʼnõΩ
ZO`À „â◊q∞Oz U<å_À QÆOQÆ #∞O_ç „`«qfi# KåÖÏ HÍÅ∞=Å∞
~å*ò=∞ǨÏÖò #∞O_ç ã¨=Ú„^ŒO =~°‰õÄ L#fl=x ɡsfl q=iOKå_»∞.4
~å|~°∞ì HÔ "¡ £ ɡOQÍÖò ѨÓ~°fi ~å[^è•x J~Ú# =Úi¬^•ÉÏ^£‰Ωõ
1757Ö’ "≥o§ WÖÏ „"åâß_»∞
''D Ѩ@ì}O "≥·âßźOÖ’, [#ã¨OYºÖ’, ^èŒ#OÖ’ ÅO_»<£
Ѩ@ì}=∞O`« LOk. HÍx XHõ ÉèË^Œ=ÚOk. D Ѩ@ì}OÖ’x =º‰õΩÎÅ∞
ÅO_»<£Ö’x "åiHõ<åfl =∞ǨÏ`«Î~° ™œÉèÏQƺO`À `«∞Å`«∂QÆ∞`«∞<åfl~°∞——5
"åV˝‡Ü«∂^è•~åÅ#∞ |\˜ì, [#â◊√$ux |\˜ì ã¨=∞HÍb#
„ѨÑO¨ K« ™ê÷~Úx |\˜ì ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ áêi„âßq∞HõOQÍ J`«∞º#fl`« ã≤u÷ Ö’
LO_ç#^Œ#fl q+¨Ü«∞O JO^Œ~°∂ JOwHõiOKå~°∞. WO_çÜ«∞<£
WO_»¢ã≤ìÜ«∞Öò Hõg∞+¨<£ (1916–18) `«=∞ x"ÕkHõ#∞ D „H˜Ok
q^èŒOQÍ „áê~°OaèOKå~°∞. ''P^èŒ∞xHõ áêi„âßq∞Hõ =º=ã¨÷‰õΩ
ѨÙ\˜xì Å¡~Ú# Ü«¸~ÀѨ٠ѨtÛ=∞ ÉèÏQÆOÖ’ J<åQÆiHõ Pk=∞ *Ï`«∞Å∞
x=ã≤ã¨∞Î#fl ~ÀAÖ’¡, ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊O ~åAÅ∞ ^èŒ<åxH˜, tÅ∞ÊÅ HõàÏ
H“â◊ÖϺxH˜ „ѨMϺ`«"≥∞ÿ# ™ê÷#O ã¨OáêkOzOk. `«~åfi`« KåÖÏ
325
HÍÖÏxH˜ `˘Å∞`« ѨtÛ=∞ =~°Î‰õΩÅ∞ ÉèÏ~°`«^ÕâßxH˜ =zÛ#ѨC_»∞
‰õÄ_» D ^Õâ◊ áêi„âßq∞HÍaè=$kú L#fl`«™ê÷~ÚÖ’ L#fl U Ü«¸~ÀѨÙ
^Õâ◊O Hõ<åfl U=∂„`«O `«‰õΩ¯= ã≤÷uÖ’ ÖË^Œ∞——6
WO_çÜ∞« <£ WO_»¢ãÜ ì≤ ∞« Öò Hõg∞+¨<£ (1916–18) J^躌 ‰õΩ∆ _»∞
ã¨~ü ^ä•=∞ãπ ǨÖÏO_»∞ ÉèÏ~°`« Ö’Ç¨Ï ã¨OѨ^Œ q+¨Ü«∞OÖ’ 1908Ö’
WÖÏ „"åâß_»∞.
''WHõ¯_ç"å~°∞ `«Ü«∂~°∞ KÕã≤# W#∞=Ú J`«∞º`«Î=∞"≥∞ÿ#k.
Ü«¸~ÀѨÙÖ’ <Õ_∞» L`«=Î ∞"≥∞#ÿ L‰õΩ¯ =ã¨∞=Î ÙÅ∞ `«Ü∂« ~°∞ KÕ¿ã Ѩ^`úŒ ∞« Å∞
JѨÊ\˜ˆH D ^Õâ◊OÖ’ L<åfl~Ú. HõàÏ=O`«=ÚÖˇ·# =ã¨∞Î ã¨OѨuÎx
~åy, HõOK«∞ "≥Ú^ŒÖˇ·# "åx`À `«Ü«∂~°∞ KÕ¿ã"å~°∞. g@xflO\˜ =Å¡
ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊O XHõѨC_»∞ Ö’Ç¨Ï „ѨѨOK«OÖ’ Ju „áê=ÚYº ™ê÷<åxfl
P„Hõq∞OzOk——7
JѨÊ\˜ˆH W#∞=Ú, L‰õΩ¯ L`«ÊuÎ J`«∞º#fl`« ™ê÷~Ú
K≥OkO^Œx QÆ∞iÎOK«=K«∞Û#∞. P q+¨Ü«∞OÖ’ P^èŒ∞xHõ áêi„âßq∞HÍ
aè=$kúH˜ `«y# Ѩiã≤`÷ ∞« Å∞ L<åfl~Ú. D Ѩiã≤u÷ x „a\˜+µ¨ áêÅ#Ö’
ZO^Œ∞‰õΩ qzÛù#flO KÕâß~À, ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊O ZO^Œ∞‰õΩ "≥#∞Hõ|_ç# ã≤÷uH˜
=zÛO^À „a\˜+¨µ áêÅ##∞ Ѩije¿ãÎ J~°÷=∞=Ù`«∞Ok.
ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ ßxfl „a\˜+"π å~°∞ ^•^•Ñ¨Ù ~Ô O_»∞ â◊`åÉÏúÅ HÍÅO
ѨiáêeOKå~°∞. "åi áêÅ# HõO>Ë =ÚO^Œ∞ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊O „ѨѨOK«
„ѨMϺu HÍOz# =ã¨∞Î=ÙÅ#∞ `«Ü«∂~°∞KÕã≤ q^ÕâßʼnõΩ ZQÆ∞=∞u
KÕã¨∂Î Ü«¸~ÀÑ≤Ü«∞<£ ^ÕâßʼnõΩ U=∂„`«O fã≤áȉõΩO_® LO_Õk.
Dã¨∞ì WO_çÜ«∂ HõOÃÑh "å~°∞ =∞# ^ÕâßxH˜ =zÛ# `˘e
~ÀAÅÖ’ =∞#^ÕâO◊ Ö’ `«Ü∂« ~Ô #· =ã¨∞=Î ÙÅ<Õ Ü«¸~ÀÑ≤Ü∞« <£ ^ÕâßʼnõΩ
fã≤‰õΩ"≥o§ J"Õ∞‡"å~°∞. HÍh „Ѩu‰õÄÅ"≥∞ÿ# „ѨÉèí∞`«fi q^è•#O =Å¡,
„a@<£Ö’ ã¨OÉèíqOz# áêi„âßq∞Hõ qѨ¡=O =Å¡ q^Õj =ã¨∞Î=ÙÅ`À
áÈ\©Ñ¨_»ÖËHõ =∞#^Õâ◊OÖ’x ‰õΩ\©~° Ѩi„â◊=∞Å∞ „Hõ=∞OQÍ H©∆}˜Oz
áÈ=@O [iyOk. ^•x`À D Ѩi„â◊=∞ÅÃÑ· P^è•~°Ñ¨_ç# "å~°∞
QÆ`«ºO`«~°O ÖËHõ =º=™êÜ«∞~°OQÍxH˜ `«~°eáÈ=@O`À, JѨÊ\˜ˆH
JkèHõ [<åÉèÏ L#fl =º=™êÜ«∞~°OQÆOÃÑ· P^è•~°Ñ_¨ @» O`À x~°∞^ÀºQÆO
ÃÑiyOk.
ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ #∞Oz ™ê^躌 "≥∞#ÿ O`« Z‰õΩ¯= ~å|_ç á⁄O^Œ_"» ∞Õ
„a\˜+π "åi „Ѩ^è•# ^èպܫ∞OQÍ LO_Õk. "åi ~å|_çÖ’ Z‰õΩ¯=
ÉèÏQÍxfl ã¨=∞‰õÄiÛÃÑ>Ëì Éèí∂q∞tã¨∞Î#∞ ã≤÷~°OQÍ Z‰õΩ¯= "≥Ú`«ÎOÖ’
á⁄O^Œ_®xH˜ âßâ◊fi`« tã¨∞ΠѨ^Œúu (Permanent Settlement)
1793Ö’ ɡOQÍÖòÖ’ „Ѩ"Õâ◊ÃÑ@ì_»O [iyOk. `«~°∞"å`« nxx
=∞iH˘xfl „áêO`åʼnõΩ qã¨iÎ OѨ*âË ß~°∞. ~Ô `· ∞« ʼnõΩ, ѨÓ~°fi [g∞O^•~°∞ʼnõΩ
Éèí∂q∞ÃÑ· Pã≤ÎǨωõΩ¯ ÅaèOzOk. H˘`«ÎQÍ U~°Ê_ç# D [g∞O^•s
=~°æO KÕ`«∞ÅÖ’ Éèí∂q∞ Z‰õΩ¯=QÍ ˆHO„nHõ$`«"≥∞ÿ LO_Õk. „a\˜+π
326
áêÅ#‰õΩ g~°∞ XHõ =ÚYº"≥∞ÿ# J#∞‰õÄÅ =~°æOQÍ LO_Õ"å~°∞. D
[g∞O^•~°∞¡ „ѨÉèí∞`åfixH˜ K≥e¡OK«_»O HÀã¨O, `«=∞ ÖÏÉèíO HÀã¨O
Ô~·`«∞Å#∞Oz Z‰õΩ¯= "≥Ú`«ÎOÖ’ H“Å∞ =ã¨∂Å∞ KÕ¿ã"å~°∞. "Õˆ~
J=HÍâßÅ∞ ÖËHõ ~Ô `· ∞« Å∞ QÆ`º« O`«~O° ÖËx Ѩiã≤`÷ ∞« ÅÖ’ Z‰õΩ¯= Ѩ#∞fl
K≥e¡ã¨∂Î ¿ã^ŒºO KÕã¨∂Î r=#O QÆ_ç¿Ñ"å~°∞. =º=™êÜ«∞ L`«ÊuÎ
ÃÑOK«_»O HÀã¨O U"≥∞ÿ<å K«~°ºÅ∞ fã¨∞HÀ"åÅ<åfl "åi ^ŒQÆæ~° Pi÷Hõ
™ÈÎ=∞`« LO_Õk HÍ^Œ∞. [g∞O^•~°∞¡ ‰õÄ_® =º=™êÜ«∞ L`«ÊuÎ
ÃÑOK«_»O HÀã¨OQÍh, Éèí∂q∞x Jaè=$kúѨ~°K«_»O HÀã¨OQÍh „â◊^Œú
K«∂¿Ñ"å~°∞ HÍ^Œ∞. J~Ú`Õ Ô~·`«∞ʼnõΩ, „ѨÉèí∞`åfixH˜ „Ѩ`«ºHõ∆ ã¨O|O^èŒ
=Ú#fl Ô~·`«∞"ås Ѩ^Œúu KåÖÏ „áêO`åÅÖ’ J=∞Å∞Ö’ L#flѨÊ\˜H©
JHõ¯_» ‰õÄ_® ~Ô `· ∞« ŠѨiã≤u÷ ^Œ∞~°ƒ~ù O° QÍ<Õ LO_Õk. „ѨÉ∞íè `«fiO Z‰õΩ¯=
"≥Ú`«ÎOÖ’ Ô~·`«∞Å #∞O_ç tã¨∞Î =ã¨∂Å∞ KÕÜ«∞@"Õ∞HÍHõ, Ô~·`«∞Å Pi÷Hõ
Ѩiã≤÷ux "≥∞~°∞QÆ∞Ѩ~°K«@O HÀã¨O U q^èŒ"≥∞ÿ# K«~°ºÅ∞ fã¨∞HÀHõ
áÈ=_»O =Å¡ Ô~·`«∞Å Pi÷Hõ Ѩiã≤÷u H©∆}˜Oz `«=∞ P^•Ü«∂Å#∞Oz
á⁄^Œ∞Ѩ٠KÕã≤ ÃÑ@∞ì|_ç ÃÑ\˜ì =º=™êÜ«∞ L`«Ê`«∞ÎÅ#∞ ÃÑOK«QÆeˆQ
Ѩiã≤÷uÖ’ LO_Õ"å~°∞ HÍ^Œ∞. KåÖÏ=∞Ok z#fl Ô~·`«∞Å∞ `«=∞ Pi÷Hõ
^Œ∞ã≤u÷ =Å¡ =º=™êÜ«∞O KÕÜ∞« ÖËHõ Éè∂í =ÚÅ#∞ J=Ú‡H˘x =º=™êÜ«∞
‰õÄbÅ∞QÍ =∂~å~°∞. Ѷ¨e`«OQÍ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõOÖ’H˜ <≥@ì|_®¤~°∞.
^ÕâßxH˜, f„= ^•i„^ŒºO ^•Ñ¨ÙiOK«@O ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊OÖ’
„a\˜+π ѨiáêÅ# XHõ „Ѩ^•è # HÍ~°}O. HÍÅO QÆ_zç #H˘nÌ, „Ѩ[ʼnõΩ
„|`«∞‰õΩ `≥~°∞=Ù ^˘~°Hõ@O ^Œ∞~°¡Éèí"≥∞ÿáÈ~ÚOk. „a\˜+π Pi÷Hõ^ÀÑ≤_ç
^ÕjÜ«∞ Ѩi„â◊=∞ŠѨ`«#O, "å\˜™ê÷<Õ P^èŒ∞xHõ Ѩi„â◊=∞Å∞, `«Å‰õΩ
q∞Oz# Ѩ#∞flÅ |~°∞=Ù, ÉèÏ~°`« ã¨OѨ^Œ „a@<£‰õΩ Ѩܫ∞#O,
=º=™êÜ«∞ ã¨Î|ú`«‰õΩ ^•i fã≤# "≥#∞Hõ|_ç# =º=™ê~ÚHõ =º=ã¨÷,
~Ô `· åOQÍxfl ^Àz"Õ¿ã [g∞O^•~°∞,¡ Éè∂í HÍ=∞O^Œ∞Å∞, „ѨÉ∞íè =ÙÅ∞, =_ô¤
"åºáê~°ã¨∞ÎÅ∞, =~°Î‰õΩÅ∞, „ѨÉèí∞`«fiO ^Õâ◊ ^•i„^•ºxH˜ HÍ~°}ÏÅ∞.
19= â◊`åaÌ Ô~O_»= áê^ŒOÖ’ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊OÖ’x Jxfl
„áêO`åÅÖ’ q[$OaèOz# Hõ~°∞=Ù HÍ@HÍÅÖ’ „Ѩ[Å ^•i„^ŒºO
Ѩ~åHÍ+¨‰ì Ωõ KÕiOk. D Hõ~∞° =Ù HÍ@HÍÅ∞ "≥Ú@ì"Ú≥ ^Œ@ 1860–61Ö’
L`«~Î „° Ѩ^âÕ ò ѨtÛ=∞ „áêO`«OÖ’ K≥Å~ˆ y ~Ô O_»∞ ÅHõÅ∆ xO_»∞ „áê}Ïefl
|eQ˘<åfl~Ú. 1865–66Ö’ Xi™êû, cǨ~ü, =∞„^•ãπ, ~å¢ëêìÖ’¡
Hõ~°∞=Ù =zÛOk. ~°=∂~°q∞ 20 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok K«xáÈÜ«∂~°∞. XHõ¯
Xi™êûÖ’<Õ Ñ¨k ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok =∞~°}˜OKå~°∞. 1868–70
ã¨O=`«û~åÅ =∞^茺 L`«Î~°„Ѩ^Õâò, ÉÁOÉÏ~Ú, ѨO*Ï|∞ ~å¢ëêìÅÖ’
ã¨OÉèíqOz# ^•~°∞} H∆Í=∞OÖ’ 14 ÅHõ∆Å =∞OkH˜ ÃÑ·QÍ „áê}ÏÅ∞
q_çKå~°∞. ~å[ѨÙ~îå<åÖ’ J<ÕHõ ã¨O™ê÷<åÖ’¡ #∂\˜H˜ 30 =∞OkH˜
ÃÑ·QÍ Hõ~°∞=Ù =Å¡ =∞~°}˜OKå~°∞.
1876–78Ö’ =∞„^•ã¨ ∞ , "≥ ∞ ÿ ã ¨ ∂ ~° ∞ , ÃÇ· Ï ^Œ ~ åÉÏ^£ ,
=∞Ǩ~åR, L`«~Î „° Ѩ^âÕ ò ѨtÛ=∞ „áêO`«O, ѨO*ÏÉòÅÖ’ ã¨OÉèqí Oz#
Platinum Platform
Hõ~∞° =Ù ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ Ö’ JѨÊ\˜=~°‰Ωõ ã¨OÉèqí Oz# Hõ~∞° =ÙÖ’¡ J`«ºO`«
ÉèíÜ«∞OHõ~°"≥∞ÿOk. =∞Ǩ~åRÖ’ 8 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok, =∞„^•ã¨∞ ~åROÖ’
35 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok, "≥∞ÿã¨∂~°∞ [<åÉèÏÖ’ S^Œ= =O`«∞, L`«Î~°„Ѩ^ÕâòÖ’
12 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok =∞~°}˜OKå~°∞. 1896–97Ö’ XHõ ™êi, uiy
1899–1900Ö’ =∞~˘Hõ™êi ^Œ∞iƒùHõ∆ Ѩiã≤÷`«∞Å∞ P=iOz
^Õâ"◊ åºÑ¨OÎ QÍ Hõ~∞° =Ù ã¨OÉèqí OzOk. 1896–97 Hõ~∞° =ÙÖ’ `˘q∞‡k
HÀ@¡ 50 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok „Ѩ[ÅÃÑ· Hõ~°∞=Ù „ѨÉèÏ=O Ѩ_çOk. 45
ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok =∞~°}˜OKå~°∞. "≥O@<Õ =∞m§ 1899Ö’ Hõ~°∞=Ù =Å#
ÅHõ∆ÖÏk [#O #+¨ìáÈÜ«∂~°∞. Hõ~°∞=Ù x"å~°} K«~°ºÅ ^•fi~å „Ñ¨[Å
„áê}ÏÅ∞ HÍáê_®¤xH˜ „ѨÉèí∞`«fiO ѨÓ#∞‰õΩ<åfl ã¨∞=∂~°∞ 25 ÅHõ∆Å
=∞Ok K«xáÈÜ«∂~°∞. D ÃÑ^ŒÌ Hõ~°∞=ÙÖÁHõ¯>Ë H͉õΩO_® J<ÕHõ
„áêO`åÖ’¡ ™ê÷xHõOQÍ Hõ~°∞=Ù HÍ@HÍÅ∞, PǨ~° H˘~°`« =ÔQ·~åÅ∞
U~°Ê_ç<å~Ú. 1854–1901 ã¨O=`«û~åÅ =∞^躌 ã¨OÉèqí Oz# Hõ~∞° =Ù
HÍ@HÍÖ’¡ "≥Ú`«ÎO 2 HÀ@¡ 88 ÅHõ∆Å, 25 "ÕÅ =∞Ok „Ѩ[Å∞
=∞~°}˜Oz#@∞¡ qeÜ«∞O _çwƒ J<Õ „a\˜+π ~°K«~Ú`« ÖˇHõ¯QÆ\Ïì_»∞.
1943Ö’ ã¨OÉèíqOz# ɡOQÍÖò Hõ~°∞=ÙÖ’ 30 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok
=∞~°}˜OKå~°∞.8
19= â◊`å|ÌOÖ’ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊OÖ’ `åO_»qOKÕ ÉèíÜ«∞OHõ~°
^•i„^Œº ã¨fi~°∂áêxfl WHõ¯_» ѨxKÕ¿ã WOw¡+µ¨ JkèHÍ~°Ö¡ ’ KåÖÏ=∞Ok
QÆ∞iÎOKå~°∞. L^•Ç¨Ï~°}‰õΩ, QÆ=~°fl~°∞–[#~°Öò ã¨ÅǨ=∞O_»e
ã¨Éèí∞º_≥·# Kå~ü¡û WeÜ«∞\ò WÖÏ "åºMϺxOKå_»∞ :
''=º=™êÜ«∞O g∞^Œ rqOKÕ „Ѩ[Ö’¡ ã¨QÆO =∞Ok U_®k
"≥Ú`«OÎ Ö’ Hõ_∞» Ѩ٠xO_® Éè’[#O JO>Ë Uq∞\’ Z~°Q~Æ x° K≥Ñʨ _®xH˜
<Õ#∞ "≥#∞HÍ_»#∞——.9
WOÑ‘iÜ«∞Öò QÆ*ˇ\ò ã¨OHõÅ#Hõ~°Î qeÜ«∞O ǨÏO@~ü –
''ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ [<åÉèÏÖ’ <åÅ∞QÆ∞ HÀ@¡ =∞OkH˜ J~åúHõe`À „|`«∞‰õΩ
"≥à◊§|∞K«Û@O JÅ"å@——x XѨC‰õΩ<åfl_»∞.10 D Ѩiã≤÷u 20=
â◊`å|ÌOÖ’ WOHÍ kQÆ*ÏiáÈ~ÚOk. 1911 #∞Oz 1941 =~°‰õΩ
[iy# 30 Uà◊§ HÍÅOÖ’ ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ Ö’x =∞x+≤H˜ ÅaèOKÕ PǨ~°O
29 âß`«O `«yæáÈ~ÚOk.
ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ Pi÷Hõ ^≥·#º ã≤÷ux, c^Œ`«<åxfl `≥e¿Ñ QÆ∞~°∞ÎÅ∞
WOHÍ KåÖÏ L<åfl~Ú. 1925–1934 ã¨O=`«û~åÅ =∞^茺HÍÅOÖ’
„ѨѨOK«OÖ’ÔHÖÏ¡ Ju `«‰õΩ¯= `«Åã¨i P^•Ü«∞O HõÅ ^ÕâßÅ∞ K≥·<å,
WO_çÜ«∂Åx *ÏfÜ«∂^•Ü«∞ âߢã‘ÎÜ«∞ ѨijÅ#Ö’ HÀe<£ HÍ¡~ü¯
`ÕÖÏÛ_»∞. WOw¡+¨µ"åx P^•Ü«∞O ÉèÏ~°fÜ«Úx P^•Ü«∞O Hõ<åfl
J~Ú^Œ∞ Ô~@∞¡ Z‰õΩ¯=. J\Ï¡ˆQ, 1930 „áêO`«OÖ’ ÉèÏ~°fÜ«Úx
ã¨QÆ@∞ „Ѩ=∂}O 32 Uà◊√§! P^èŒ∞xHõ "≥·^Œº âߢ™êÎÅ∞, áêiâ◊√^ŒúºO
J^Œ∞ƒù`« „ѨQÆu ™êkèOz ‰õÄ_® WHõ¯_» =∞x+≤ ã¨QÆ@∞ PÜ«Ú~åÌÜ«∞O
JO`Õ. KåÖÏ Ñ¨tÛ=∞ Ü«¸~°Ñπ ^ÕâßÖ’¡#∞, L`«Î~° J"≥∞iHÍ
Platinum Platform
~å¢ëêìÖ’¡#∂ =∞x+≤ ã¨QÆ@∞ J"≥∞iHÍ ~å¢ëêìÖ’¡#∂ =∞x+≤ ã¨QÆ@∞
PÜ«Ú~åÌÜ«∞O 60 Uà◊√§.
ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ ^•i„^ŒºO, "≥#∞HõÉÏ@∞`«#O „ѨHõ$u =#~°∞Å
֒ѨO =Å¡ U~°Ê_ç#q HÍ=Ù. Jq =∂#= HõeÊ`åÅ∞. ÉèÏ~°`^« âÕ O◊ Ö’
„ѨHõ$u =#~°∞Å∞ Jáê~°O. ã¨kfixÜ≥∂QÆ Ñ¨~°∞Û‰õΩO>Ë „Ѩ[ʼnõΩ
J`«∞º#fl`« ã¨∞Yã¨OѨ^ŒÅ∞ ã¨=∞‰õÄiÛ ÃÑ>Ëì@O`« â◊H˜Î=O`«"≥∞ÿ#q.
HÍx, q^Õâ◊ ѨiáêÅ# Ѷ¨e`«OQÍ, ^ÀÑ≤_ô Ѷ¨e`«OQÍ, "≥#∞Hõ|_»¤
"åº=™ê~ÚHõ, áêi„âßq∞Hõ Pi÷Hõ x~å‡}O Ѷ¨e`«OQÍ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊O
¿Ñ^Œ „Ѩ[Å∞ rqOKÕ ã¨OѨ#fl ^Õâ◊=∞~ÚOk. Wk q_»∂¤~°"≥∞ÿ#
"åã¨Î=O.
¿Ñ^ŒiHõ x~°∂‡Å#‰õΩ K«~°ºÅ∞ :
™êfi`«O„`åº#O`«~°O ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ „ѨÉèí∞`«fiO ¿Ñ^ŒiHõ
x~°∂‡Å#‰õΩ „Ѩܫ∞`«flO KÕã≤Ok. 1960–70 ^Œâß|ÌOÖ’ [iy#
ѨijÅ#Å∞ „ѨÉèí∞`«fiO ^Œ$+≤ìx ¿Ñ^ŒiHõO "≥·Ñ¨Ù =∞o¡OKå~Ú. J~Ú^À
„Ѩ}ÏoHõ ~°∂á⁄OkOKÕ ã¨O^Œ~°ƒùOÖ’ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõ x~°∂‡Å#‰õΩ f„=Hõ$+≤
KÕÜ«∂Å<Õk „Ѩ^è•# JOâ◊OQÍ QÆ∞iÎOK«_»O [iyOk.
<å<å\˜H˜ ÃÑiyáÈ`«∞#fl ¿Ñ^ŒiHÍxfl x"åiOK«_®xH˜,
¿Ñ^Œ"åi r=#„Ѩ=∂}Ïxfl ÃÑOK«\ÏxH˜ „ѨÉèí∞`«fiO 1970 `«~°∞"å`«
H˘xfl L^ÀºQÆ Ñ¨^äŒHÍÅ∞ „Ѩ"Õâ◊ÃÑ@ì_»O [iyOk. JO^Œ∞Ö’ „QÍg∞}
Ѩ#∞Å HÍ~°º„Hõ=∞O, (Rural Works Programme) z#fl Ô~·`«∞Å
Jaè=$kú U[hû (Small Farmers Development Agency),
LáêO`« Ô~·`«∞Å, =º=™êÜ«∞ ‰õÄbÅ Jaè=$kú U[hû (Marginal
Formers and Agricultural Labour Agency), =~å¬ É è Ï =
„Ѩ É è Ï q`« „áêO`åÅ HÍ~° º „Hõ = ∞O (Drought Prone Area
Programme), ѨxH˜ PǨ~° Ѩ^H Œä Oõ (Food For Work Scheme),
L^ÀºQÆ Ç¨g∞ Ѩ^äŒHõO (Employment Guarantee Scheme)
"≥Ú^ŒÖˇ·# Ѩ^äŒHÍÅ#∞ „Ѩ"Õâ◊ÃÑ\˜ì L^ÀºQÆ J=HÍâßÅ∞ HõeÊOK«_»O
^•fi~å P^•Ü«∂Å∞, L`«ÊuÎ ÃÑOz ¿Ñ^ŒiHÍxfl x~°∂‡eOK«=K«Ûx
„ѨÉèí∞`«fiO xâ◊Û~ÚOzOk. D Ѩ^äŒHÍÅ#∞ "Õ~°∞"Õ~°∞ U[hûÅ∞
x~°fiÇ≤ÏOK«_O» =Å¡ ã¨OѨÓ~°"‚ ∞≥ #ÿ Ѷe¨ `åÅ∞ ÅaèOK«Hõ XHõ ã¨OѶ∞¨ \˜`«
HÍ~° º „Hõ = ∞O ~° ∂ á⁄OkOz P~À „Ѩ } ÏoHõ Ö ’ ^Õ â ◊ = ∞O`« \ Ï
=iÎOѨ*ËÜ«∞@O [iyOk. P Ѩ^äŒHõO IRDP Ѩ^äŒHõO (Integrated
Rural Development Programme).
ã¨=∞„QÆ „QÍg∞}Ïaè=$kú Ѩ^äŒHõO :
„QÍg∞} „Ѩ[Å r=#Ѩiã≤÷`«∞Å∞ "≥∞~°∞QÆ∞Ѩ~°K«_»O HÀã¨O
1980 JHÀì|~°∞ 2= `Õn# D Ѩ^äŒHÍxfl „Ѩ"Õâ◊ÃÑ@ì_»O [iyOk.
D Ѩ^äŒHõO =Å¡ ¿Ñ^ŒiHõ x~°∂‡Å#‰õΩ „Ѩ`«ºHõ∆ K«~°ºÅ∞ fã¨∞HÀ=_®xH˜
J=HÍâ◊O U~°Ê_çOk. D Ѩ^äŒHõO ^•fi~å 1985–86Ö’ 30.61
327
ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok 1986–87Ö’ 37.47 ÅHõ∆Å =∞Ok ÅaÌá⁄O^•~°∞. References :
1991–92 ã¨O=`«û~°OÖ’ 25.17 ÅHõÅ∆ ¿Ñ^Œ „QÍg∞} ‰õΩ@∞OÉÏÅ∞ 1. Ram Ahuja, Social Problems in India, New Delhi, 1997 p.
ÅaÌá⁄O^•~°∞. 47; C.N. Shankar Rao, Sociology-Primary Principles, New
*ÏfÜ«∞ „QÍg∞} L^Àºy`å Ѩ^äŒHõO : Delhi, 2001. p. 582
D Ѩ^äŒHÍxfl JHÀì|~°∞ 2, 1980Ö’ ѨxH˜ PǨ~°Ñ¨^äŒHõO 2. \Ï=ifl~ü, ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊ ã¨OKå~°O, P‰õΩûѶ¨~°∞¤ Ü«¸x=iû\© „ÃÑãπ,
™ê÷#OÖ’ U~åÊ@∞ KÕÜ«∞@O [iyOk. D Ѩ^äŒHõO HÀã¨O P~À 1925, Vol. I, p. 238
„Ѩ}ÏoHõÖ’ 1843.76 HÀ@∞¡ Y~°∞ÛKÕã≤ 1774.37 q∞eÜ«∞#¡
3. ~°[h áêq∞^Œ`,ü <Õ\ ˜ ÉèÏ~°`«^Õâ◊O, q[Ü«∞"å_», 1947, p. 41
Ѩxk<åÅ L^ÀºQÆ HõÅÊ# [iyOk. U_À ѨOK«=~°¬ „Ѩ}ÏoHõÖ’
D Ѩ^äŒHõO „H˜O^Œ 1445 q∞eÜ«∞#∞¡ Ѩxk<åÅ∞ HõeÊOKåÅx 4. Ibid
ÅHõ∆ ºOHÍQÍ 1986–87 <å\˜H˜ 395.23 q∞eÜ«∞#¡ Ѩxk<åÅ∞, 5. ~°[h áêq∞^Œ`ü, Op.cit. p. 40
1987–88 <å\˜H˜ 370.77 q∞eÜ«∞#∞¡, 1988–89 <å\˜H˜
6. ~°[h áêq∞^Œ`ü, Op.cit. p. 42
394.96 q∞eÜ«∞#¡ Ѩxk<åʼnõΩ ã¨iѨ_» Ѩx HõeÊOK«_O» [iyOk.
7. Ibid
Éèí∂q∞ÖËx „QÍg∞} „Ѩ[Å Láêkè Éèí„^Œ`å Ѩ^äŒHõO :
8. aÑ≤<£K«O„^Œ, P^èŒ∞xHõ ÉèÏ~°`« K«i„`«, ÃÇ·Ï^Œ~åÉÏ^£, 1988 p.
„QÍg∞} „áêO`åÅÖ’x Éèí∂q∞ÖËx „Ѩu ‰õΩ@∞O|OÖ’ XHõ
224
=ºH˜ÎH˜ ã¨O=`«û~°OÖ’ 100 ~ÀAÅ∞ Ѩx HõeÊOK«_®xH˜ 1983Ö’
D Ѩ^äŒHõO „áê~°OaèOKå~°∞. D Ѩ^äŒHõO ¿Ñ^ŒiHõOÖ’ L#fl 9. Ibid
x~°∞^ÀºQÆʼnõΩ Z‰õΩ¯=QÍ LѨÜ≥∂QÆѨ_çOk. ˆHO„^Œ„ѨÉèí∞`«fiO "≥Ú^Œ\ ˜ 10. Ibid
™êiQÍ 500 HÀ@¡ ~°∂áêÜ«∞Å∞ D Ѩ^äŒHÍxH˜ ˆH\Ï~ÚOzOk. D
Ѩ^äŒHõO ^•fi~å P~À „Ѩ}ÏoHõ z=i Ô~O_»∞ ã¨O=`«û~åÅÖ’ Hõeã≤
260.18 Ѩx k<åŠѨx HõeÊOK«_»O [iyOk. 7= „Ѩ}ÏoHÍ ****
HÍÅO „áê~°OÉèí ã¨O=`«û~°O 1985–86 ã¨O=`«û~°OÖ’ 247.58
q∞eÜ«∞#∞¡ Ѩxk<åÅ∞ HõeÊOK«QÍ 1988–89 ã¨O=`«û~°OÖ’
296.56 q∞eÜ«∞#¡ Ѩx k<åÅ∞ HõeÊOK«_»O [iyOk.
[=ǨÏ~ü ~À*òQÍ~ü Ü≥∂[# :
„QÍg∞} „áêO`åÅÖ’ ^•i„^Œº~ˆ Y‰õΩ kQÆ∞=# L#fl 4 HÀ@¡
40 ÅHõ∆Å ‰õΩ@∞OÉÏÖ’¡ XH˘¯Hõ¯ ‰õΩ@∞O|OÖ’ XHõ¯iÔH·<å 50 #∞Oz
100 ~ÀAÅ∞ Ѩx HõeÊOK«\ÏxH˜ 1989Ö’ „Ѩ"Õâ◊ÃÑ\Ïì~°∞. D
Ѩ^HŒä Oõ ^•fi~å 1989–90Ö’ 8643.87 ÅHõÅ∆ Ѩxk<åÅ∞ HõeÊOK«QÍ
1990–91 <å\˜ H ˜ 8745.59 Ѩ x k<åÅ∞, 1991–92
ã¨O=`«û~°OÖ’ 8081 ÅHõ∆ŠѨxk<åÅ∞ HõeÊOK«_»O [iyOk.
ÉèÏ~°`« „ѨÉèí∞`«fiO ¿Ñ^ŒiHõ x~°∂‡Å#‰õΩ H˘xfl n~°…HÍeHõ
K«~°ºÅ∞ ‰õÄ_® KÕѨ\ ˜ìOk. JO^Œ∞Ö’ =ÚYºOQÍ Éèí∂ã¨O㨯~°}Å∞,
„QÍg∞} Ѩi„âßg∞Hõ~}° , x~°H~∆õ å㨺`« x~°∂‡Å#, [<åÉèÏ xÜ«∞O„`«}
=ÚYº"≥∞ÿ#q. D q^èŒ"≥∞ÿ# K«~°ºÅ∞ J<ÕHõO fã¨∞HÀ=@O ^•fi~å
¿Ñ^ŒiHÍxfl x"åiOK«=K«∞Û. H˘`«Î Ѩ^äŒHÍÅ∞ „Ѩ"Õâ◊ÃÑ@ì_»O Hõ<åfl
L#fl Ѩ ^ ä Œ H ÍÅ J=∞Å∞ 㨠„ Hõ = ∞OQÍ H˘#™êy¿ãÎ ¿Ñ^Œ i HÍxfl
x~°∂‡eOK«=K«∞Û.

328 Platinum Platform