Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER V
DISPUTES OVER NEYYATTINKARA, PEERMEDE, DEVIKULAM,
CHITTUR, COORG, GUDALUR AND FOREST LAND IN MALABAR
In the second chapter, it was stated that the declared objective of the TTNC
was the merger of nine taluks Thovala, Agastheeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode,
Neyyattinkara, Shencottah Peermede, Devikulam and Chittur of Travancore-
Cochin State with Madras State.' The Madras Government gave full support to the
venture of the T T N C. They separately submitted memorandums to the S R C
demanding, the merger of the same taluks with Madras State.^ A large number of
interested groups also upheld the view and approached the S R C with
memorandums. The main claim advanced on behalf of Madras, rested on linguistic
consideration and on grounds of geographical contiguity.^ Of these 9 taluks, the
Fazl Ali Commission recommended the merger of five taluks, Thovala,
Agastheeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode and Shencottah with Madras State.
Thus after the submission of the S R C Report, the Tamils strengthened their claim
for the remaining four taluks, Peermede, Devikulam, Neyyattinkara and Chittur
and later for some forest land of Malabar.
Neyyattinkara taluk was a predominantly Malayalam speaking taluk (86 per
cent). As far as Chittur taluk was concerned, the Tamils claimed that the Tamil
' Lok Sabha Debates, on the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, 14 December to 23 December 1955, Vol. I, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, February 1956, pp. 133, 134.
^ Ibid, p. \40. ^ S R C Report, p. 89.
148
speaking population was 95 per cent. But the Fazl Ali Commission was convinced
that the Tamil claim was misleading and that the Malayalam percentage of the
taluk was 59.8. Before the reorganization of Kerala and Madras States, a portion
of Chittur was an enclave in Madras State. But when Kerala State was constituted,
it could be conveniently attached to Malabar."*
Thus, having realized that there was no reason behind the claim for Chittur
taluk in Trichur district and Neyyattinkara taluk in Trivandrum district, in some
way the Tamils raised the claim for merging these taluks with Madras. Meanwhile
they went ahead with their claim for Peermede and Devikulam taluks. The S R C
in its report preferred these taluks to the State of Kerala itself But Madras pressed
the S R Department to transfer the Devikulam and Peermede taluks to them.
Against the Madras claim, the Travancore-Cochin State appealed before the
Government of India that the Devikulam and Peermede taluks should be
maintained in Kerala as proposed by the Commission.^ The Madras claim on the
Devikulam and Peermede taluks, according to them was on linguistic
consideration. The Travancore-Cochin State countered that the Tamil argument is
not authentic.
While the Madras claim for the above-mentioned taluks was going on,
Kerala claimed that Gudalur taluk of Nilgiri district of Madras State and the State
of Coorg should become part of the proposed Kerala State. The Travancore-
Cochin claim was mainly on linguistic consideration and geographical contiguity.
There was no mention in S R C recommending transfer of these taluks to the
proposed Kerala State.
•* S R C Report, pp. 87, 88. The present Chittur taluk is formed by taking the entire Chittur taluk of the former Travancore-Cochin state and 14 villages of the old Palghat taluk. Adoor K. K. Ramachandran Nair, Kerala State Gazetteer, Vol. I, p. 30.
' Note Prepared by the S R Department, serial No. I (issue) dated 17 October 1955 to Chief Minister of Travancore-Cochin, M H A, N A New Delhi, pp. 2, 3.
149
The dispute over Coorg
Coorg was an independent Indian Native State, adjoining the Madras,
Mysore and proposed Kerala States. As per the Indian Independence Act of 1947,
Indian Native States have the discriminative power to merge with Indian Union or
stay as an independent Kingdom. According to this, the State was maintaining the
status of independence. But, when the discussions of linguistic formation of States
got serious attention, the question of its separate existence became irrelevant in the
new changed situation. Thus, the S R C recommended that the State of Coorg be
merged with the proposed Kamataka State.^
The linguistic affiliation of this State was predominantly with Kamataka.
Kannada linguistic group forms the largest linguistic group in the State accounting
for 35 per cent of its population; Coorgi or Kodagu, which was spoken by about
29 per cent of its people was akin to Kannada and was regarded by some
authorities as a dialect of Kannada. Culturally, Coorg had more links with the
east, which is mainly Kamataka country, than with the west and the south, and
geographically the whole of Coorg forms part of Malanad, which belongs
essentially to Kamataka.^
While, Kamataka's and Kerala's claim for Coorg was going on, it was
claimed by Tamil Nadu also. Having consulted the different arguments, the S R
Department agreed with the proposal of S R C and approved the merging of Coorg
with Kamataka State. Later, having realized there was no reason behind the claim
for Coorg, the Government of Travancore-Cochin State retreated from it. They
strengthened the view of the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri district of the Madras
* See, SRC Report., p. 97. ^ S R C Report, pp. 101, 102. Malanad mQ&ns Hilly area. 'Dar Commission Report., p. 8.
150
State that it should be transferred to the proposed Kerala State. ̂ Thus, after a series
of serious disputes, however, the claim of Kerala and Madras over Coorg, rested
like the claim of Madras over Peermede and Devikulam.
Gudalur
Gudalur was the western taluk of the Nilgiri district of the then Madras State,
lying between 11° 23' and 11° 40' N. and 76° 14' and 76° 36' E., at a lower
elevation than the rest of the district. It comprises south-east Waynad, which was
transferred from Malabar in 1877, and the coffee growing area called the
'Ouchterlony valley'. It contained twelve revenue villages, including Gudalur, the
headquarters; but most of the land was held on tenures similar to those in Malabar,
under the Tirumalpad of Nilambur in that district. The inhabitants mainly talk
Malay alam or an admixture of that language and Tamil.'°
The S R C Report proposed Gudalur taluk to the then Madras State itself
Many responsible organizations representing Malayalees and the Government of
Travancore-Cochin put forward the claim for Gudalur, after the submission of S R
C Report." The claims upheld the view that linguistic, geographic, economic and
cultural affinities of Gudalur were the same as the proposed Kerala State.
Instead of the Government of Travancore-Cochin State, Panampilli Govinda
Menon, the Chief Minister of Travancore-Cochin, sent a memorandum before Hari
Sharma, Joint secretary of State Reorganization Commission, regarding the
inclusion of Gudalur, in the Kerala State thus:
' Note Prepared by the S R Department, serial No. I (issue) dated 17 October 1955 to Chief Minister of Travancore-Cochin, M H A, N A I, New Delhi, pp. 2, 3.
'" Government of India., Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series Madras II, Southern Districts, Nilgiri, p. 316.
" Lok Sabha Debates on the Report of the SRC, Vol. I, p. 131.
151
This taluk known as South-East Waaynad formed part of
Malabar district until 1877. In that year, it was transferred for
purposes of administration to the Nilgiri district because the
Malabar district was found to be too big and unwieldy and the
Nilgiri district was found to be small. After the transfer of
Gudalur taluk to the Nilgiri district, more than one proposal was
made by the Madras Government to keep Gudalur with Malabar.
This, however, did not materialize as the proposal was repeatedly
objected to by successive collectors of Malabar on the ground that
Malabar district was already a heavy one.'^
History reveals that Gudalur was treated as part of Nilagiri only for the
convenience of administration. According to the Census statistics of 1951, 57% of
the voters of Gudalur taluk were Malayalees. Among the non-Malayalee voters,
12,085 are Marunthatham Chetties who were the original inhabitants of Gudalur.
Their culture was a mixture of Malayalam and Kannada and they form 26 per cent
of the population. In their customs and habits, they cannot be distinguished from
Malayalees. In short, compiling the percentage of Malayalee voters and
Marunthatham Chetties, the Malayalam percentage of the population was 83. The
rest of the population, viz., Tamils and Kannadigas, was only 17 per cent. There
was, therefore, a very strong case for merging Gudalur in the proposed Kerala
State, particularly because the "district rule" has been given the go-by, by the
Commission in such instances.'"'
'̂ Memorandum regarding the inclusion of certain areas to the proposed Kerala State to the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Education Minister, the Congress President and the General Secretary of the Congress from the government of Travancore-Cochin state, dated 15 November 1955., Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum, Teen Murthi House, New Delhi, p. 5.
"Letter dated 30 April 1956, P. S. Rao, the Advisor of Rajpramukh to Govinda Vallabh Pant, Miiuster for Home Affairs, Secret, N A I, New Delhi, p. 3.
152
While this linguistic figure was subjected to debate in the Lok Sabha, N. M.
Lingam, the Member from Coimbatore constituency of Madras State, opposed it.
He advocated that the Malayalam speaking percentage of this taluk was only 35
per cent. Moreover, the transfer of this taluk would hardly affect the economy of
then Madras State.'"^
Meanwhile the Government of Travancore-Cochin sent a memorandum
before the S R Department, which detailed that the population of Gudalur being
overwhelmingly Malayalee, Malayalam continued to be the court language and
the medium of instruction in educational institutions even after the transfer of
Gudalur to the Nilgiri district in 1877. Ever since the inception of democratic
institutions, the voter's list of the taluk was always published in Malayalam, but in
1955, the list was published in Tamil also. From this move, it was clear that this
step was taken by the Madras Government in the context of the impending
recommendations of the S R C . There was also a protest in the Madras State
Assembly when this was done.'^
Moreover, it is a wellknown fact that the system of land tenure in Malabar
was different from that in the rest of the Madras State. So much so, the Madras
Government enacted the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act
(M C T I A, Act-I of 1900) solely for the Malabar district and later made the law
applicable to the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri district by the Gudalur Compensation
for Tenants Improvements Act (G C T I A, Act XII of 1931). This was done
because Gudalur naturally formed part of Malabar and the conditions of land
'* Lok Sabha Debates on the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, Vol. I, p. 131. (131-132).
" File No. 20/ 01/ 55-SR, Ministry of Home Affairs (States Reorganisation Section), Comments on the Report of the SRC from the Government of Travancore-Cochin, Regarding Gudalur taluk, p. 7.
153
tenure were similar to those of Malabar although for administrative purposes it
was in the Nilgiri district. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to look into
the statement of objects and reasons of Act XII of 1931.'^ The fact that when the
questions of reorganisation were not in the air, the Madras Government found that
legislation intended for the Malabar district of the Madras State should be made
applicable to Gudalur also was a fact of great significance. The significance was
that Gudalur had been treated all along as belonging naturally to Malabar.
But when Travancore-Cochin State went ahead with the counter proposal to
the S R C, on Gudalur taluk, the Madras Government claimed that the taluk was
too important to them for economy, irrigation and electricity. Against this claim,
Travancore-Cochin put forward the claim that as far as the economic point of view
of this taluk is considered, the Pykara Head Works'^ and the two Power Houses
'Sinkara' and 'Mayar' are outside the Gudalur taluk. Hence, the inclusion of
Gudalur in Kerala would in no way affect those installations nor any other
economic interest of the Madras State.'^ The State Government of Travancore-
Cochin appealed before the States Reorganisation Department that the suggestion
'* "The M C T I A, 1899 (Madras Act I of 1900), passed with a view to secure to the tenants of jenmmies in the Malabar district, on ejectment from their holdings, compensation for improvements made by them or by their predecessors in interest. This area known as the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri district formerly belonged to the Malabar district and the conditions of tenure in that area are similar to those in Malabar. Representations have been made from time to time that the M C T I A should be made applicable to the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri district on the ground that the tenants ofjenmies in that taluk require the protection of the Act just as much as the tenants of jenmies in Malabar. It is accordingly proposed to extend the provisions of the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri district. File No 20/1/ 55 SR, pp. 12, 13.
" File No. 20/ 01/ 55-SR, Ministry of Home Affairs (States Reorganisation Section), Comments on the Report of the S R C from the Government of Travancore-Cochin, Regarding Gudalur taluk, p. 7.
'* Pykara is one of the main power projects of the Madras State. It is situated at a comparatively higher place. After producing power, the water flowed to Sinkara Power Station. From Sinkara the water reaches at Mayar Power Station. From Mayar, the water is used for irrigation purposes.
" Lok Sabha Debates, on the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, Vol. I, op. cit.
154
should be reviewed in this respect and Gudalur ordered to be part of Kerala. Thus,
the S R Department examined every factor regarding the Gudalur taluk and finally
reached the conclusion that as far as the dispute regarding Gudalur, the history of
the taluk was strongly in favour of the inclusion of Gudalur in Kerala rather than
in the Madras State.
During this time as a protest against the move for the inclusion of Gudalur in
Kerala, Madras State strongly appealed before the Central Government.
Subsequently to examine the question, a four man Committee was appointed by
the Congress Working Committee (C W C) in 1955. The four man Committee
examined all factors regarding the taluk and submitted its report with
recommendations to transfer the taluk to Kerala State on linguistic and geographic
considerations. When the Report was seriously considered by the Central Cabinet,
K. Kamaraj, the then the Chief Minister of Madras, threatened to resign and with
this threat the Central Cabinet altered the decisions overnight, retained Gudalur in
Madras, and as if by way of compensation, gave Kasaragod to Kerala.^° Thus,
Gudalur remained in the then Madras State and there was no more claim for the
taluk from Kerala since then.
Devikulam and Peermede
Devikulam and Peermede were two of the eight taluks of Kottayam district
of Travancore and later Travancore-Cochin State. These taluks have a different
status being hilly areas, which, for economic and other reasons, were of great
importance to the State of Travancore - Cochin. These taluks were noticeable
^̂ Indian Express, (an article by K.R. Karanth), 28 705/1956, Bangalore edition, p. 6. '̂ Devikulam and Peermede taluks have a large concentration of Tamilans who are mainly labourers in Tea and Cardamom estates. This population is slightly of a floating nature as they have their permanent settlements in Tamil Nadu. Most of the Cardamom estates are owned by Tamilans living in Cumbum, Gudalur and other towns in the adjoining Madurai district. The
155
because of Tamil settlements and lying adjacent to Tamil land. Hence, the Tamil
linguistic Movement and T T N C took deep roots in these two taluks since 1945.
The history of the Tamil struggle for separate identity started in Devikulam
and Peermede taluks with the formation of T T N C, like the other Tamil taluks of
South Travancore. S. Sharma and Duraipandi Nadar took the efforts to strengthen
the Tamil Movement in these taluks. The announcement for the election to
Travancore in 1948 gave an impetus to the wide acceptance of the Movement in
this region. In this election, the T T N C found T S C as their prime opponent.
Accordingly, there prevailed a linguistic temper between the Malayalam and
Tamil linguistic groups. The Tamils of these taluks supported the Tamil merging
Movement. At the same time, the Malayalees stood for United Kerala Movement.
As a result, the Malayalee and Tamil identity feeling reached its climax.
In the General election of 1948, the T T N C set up 18 candidates including
Peermede and Devikulam constituencies and gave equal priority to this double
member constituency with South Travancore. Mostly, all the T T N C leaders
made election campaigns among the Tamil voters of these two taluks. Out of 18
constituencies, 14 seats were secured by the T T N C, in the election. All of them
were confined only in South Travancore. They lost the Devikulam and Peermede
names 'Devikulam and Peermede' are differently spelt in different sources. Devikulam is sometimes mentioned as 'Devicolam' also. Meanwhile Peermede is referred to as 'Peermade', 'Peermadu' also. The name is derived from two words 'Peer' and ''Mede'. 'Peer' is the name of a Sufi saint. 'Mede' is the Malayalam connotation for the English word 'Hill'. It is believed that the name 'Peermede' is derived from the Mausoleum of Peer Muhammad. Peermede means 'Hill of Peer'. Peer Muhammad was a Sufi saint who attained Samadhi on the top of a high peak at Peermede. A Mausoleum was built on the burial ground of Peer Muhammad by Rani Lekshmi Bai, the then regent of the erstwhile Travancore in the first decade of the 20* century. District Handbooks of Kerala, Idukki, Department of Information and Public Relations, (Hereafter I & P R D), Government of Kerala, 2003, p. 38. S R C Report., Government of India., New Delhi., 1955, p. 86.
^̂ Maria John, B., Formation of the State of Tamil Nadu, p. 34.
156
constituency by very few votes. About the loss of T T N C candidate in this
constituency in 1948 Election, A Nesamony accused that, up in the Hills in
Devikulam taluk, the Reserve Police joined hands with T S C goondas, entered the
village of Marayur and Vattavada, two Tamilan centres, the day previous to the
Election, and by lathi blows, assaults and threats drove off a good portion of the
Tamil voters. At Chithirapuram and Kallar, polling was effectively prevented by a
riot. Moreover, a good number of Tamil coolies living in Devikulam were not
included in the voters list. For these reasons, the T T N C candidate was not able
to score a victory.^^ However, it is no doubt that the Election strengthened the
intensity of Tamil identity struggle in these two taluks.
At this time, Travancore State passed through a series of events. As a protest
against the decision of the independent Travancore State of the Diwan C P
Ramaswami Aiyer, the Tamils of the taluks waged intensive struggle to merge the
Tamil speaking taluks with the then Madras State. When Travancore State
integrated with Cochin State, the Tamils led Anti integration Movement. They
generated the Tamil sentimental feelings among the Tamils, to integrate with the
then Madras State.
The Government of India declared the first General election after
independence in 1951. Accordingly, the first General Election was held from 10
December 1951 to 5 January 1952 in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State.̂ '* In
this Election, the T T N C put up candidates for 12 seats. They upheld the Tamil
identity in this Election and out of 12, eight seats were secured by them. From
the Devikulam-Peermede double member constituencies Deviappan Kankani was
^̂ Nesamony, A., Inside Travancore, pp. 24, 25. ^̂ Assembly Elections Since 1951., p. 6. 25 Thiyaga Rajan, K., Marshall Nesamony, (Tamil), Nagercoil, 1969, p. 3.
157
elected and of the other T T N C candidates S. S. Sharma lost by a few votes. The
victory of the candidates who upheld the Tamil merging Movement was a blow to
the exponents of the United Kerala Movement of these areas. The table given
below shows the election results in detail.
Table. 5.1.
The election result of the Devikulam-Peermede double member
constituency in the 1951 - 52 general election.̂ *
Name of Candidate
Ganapathy
Deviappan Kankani
Sharma. S. S.
Kumar. M
Others (2)
Political Parties
Congress
T T N C
T T N C
Independent
Votes secured
21,423
20468
19,330
15,230
16,664
As the Election details of the table shows, the Tamil Merging Movement was
prevalent in these taluks, i.e., the T T N C Candidate's victory was interpreted as
the victory of Tamil merging Movement of these taluks with Madras State. After
the election because no single party secured majority, the stand of T T N C
became deciding. Thus, with the support of T T N C, the Congress assumed power
in Travancore-Cochin Legislature.
However, the Ministry continued only for twenty-one months. As a protest
against the lack of support to merge the Tamil taluks with Madras, from ruling
Ministry, the T T N C party, withdrew the support to the Government on 23
26 Assembly Elections Since 1951., pp. 22, 23.
158
September 1953. ̂ ^ Consequently, with the withdrawal of the support of the T T N
C, the Congress Ministry fell, and continued as caretaker till next Election.^^
In the Election held on 12 March 1954, the T T N C contested in 16
constituencies out of 117. They secured 12 seats. In Devikulam double member
constituency, the T T N C won both seats. The table given below shows the
election results in detail.
Table. 5. 2.
The election result of the Devikulam double member constituency in the
general election of 1954. 29
Name of Candidate
Seshadrinatha Sharma
Thankayya
Ganapathy Deviappan
Independence(2)
Political Parties
T T N C
T T N C
Congress Congress
votes secured
28,596
25,853
21,266 20,451
14,750
From the Election result of each Election, it is clear that Tamil Movement
was strengthening day by day in these two taluks. During and after the General
Election conducted early in the year 1954, the T T N C intensified their agitation
for separation from the State. The leaders of the T T N C began to carry on their
^̂ The Dinamalar, 24 September 1953, p. 8. *̂ Adoor K. K. Ramachandran Nair., (ed.), Gazetteer of India, Kerala, Ernakulam, Supplement, Government of India, 1982, p. 15.
^"^ Assembly Elections Since 1951., p. 37.
159
agitation and propaganda work among the Tamilan labourers employed in the
numerous Estates in the taluks of Devikulam and Peermede. There are two labour
unions working there viz., the South Indian Plantation Workers' Union (S I P W
U) and the High Range Workers' Union (H R W U), and for some time these
Unions were being controlled by the Indian National Trade Union Congress
(INTUC),^° The Kerala organ I N T U C and Tamil Nadu organ I N T U C, The
S I P W U was affiliated to the Madras I N T U C. Meanwhile the H R W U was
supported by the Kerala I N T U C."" The relationship between these two labour
unions gradually became very strained with the result that frequent clashes
between the two groups occurred. The Police registered a series of cases against
members of both the Unions for offences committed by them during such clashes.
The members of the Labour Union supported by the T T N C as well as the leaders
of the T T N C, became annoyed by the legal steps that were being taken by the
Police to maintain peace and order among the labour folk working in the Estates of
Devikulam. The leaders felt that the effective steps taken by the Police were for
diminishing their increasing influence among the workers. As a result, a
systematic campaign was started against the Police. In almost every speech
delivered by the leaders the Police was accused of taking sides with the H R W U
and of victimizing the members of the S I P W U. Such propaganda was
systematically carried on in South Travancore also.
While the Tamil struggle for merging with Madras State was going on, the
measures taken by the Police to suppress the struggle annoyed the Tamilans. Many
leaders were arrested and jailed. The T T N C declared 'Devikulam day', on 30
^^ Report of the enquiry into the action of the police in having resorted to firing on the 11''' August 1954., p. 6.
' ' Lok Sabha Debates on the Report of the SRC, Vol. I, p. 138.
^ Report of the enquiry into the action of the police in having resorted to firing on the 11''' August 1954 p. 6.
160
June 1954, to bring popular opinion to bear upon the Government to reverse its
policy of repression. The Government did not yield. On 4 July, the day was
observed in Devikulam and responsible members of T T N C went to Devikulam
and spoke to the Tamil people. But, prohibitory orders were issued against
conducting meetings and the visits of the T T N C leaders in Devikulam and
Peermade taluk. Nesamony, Chidamparanatha Nadar, Abdul Razzak and other
leaders violated the prohibitory orders at Munnar. Following this, they were
arrested and sentenced to six weeks imprisonment.̂ '* Moreover, 434 men and 20
women were arrested for security reasons and kept in Police lock up.
Condemning the arrest of Tamil leaders, hartals were conducted in the Tamil areas
of Travancore^^ and a meeting was held at 'Sri Ram Talkies' at Nagercoil, on 5
July 1954. At this meeting, the action taken by the Police was severely
criticised. The meeting decided to observe, 9 August 1954 as deliverance day.
Later, it was changed to 11 August 1954. The observation of deliverance day in
Devikulam Peermede created disturbances. The firing incident at Nagercoil
provoked the people of these taluks too. Public meetings, agitations and
demonstrations were held throughout the areas.
During this time, the S R Commission had started functioning and invited
proposals and suggestions of the interested parties regarding the States
reorganization. The Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress and the Madras
^̂ Lok Sabha Debates on the Report of the SRC, Vol. I, p. 138.
^ Confidential Section File No, R. Dis. 1564 of 1954, K S A, Thiruvananthapuram.
'̂ Lok Sabha Debates on the Report of the SRC, 1955, Vol. I, p. 137.
*̂ Maria John, B., Formation of the State of Tamil Nadu, Nagercoil, 2006, p. 42.
" The Dinamalar., 6 July 1954, p. 1. *̂ Report of the enquiry into the action of the police in having resorted to f ring on the 11''' August 1954., pp. 5, 6.
^'/AW.,p. 6.
161
Government had Submitted petitions to the States Reorganization Commission,
demanding that Devikulam, Peermede and other predominantly Tamil areas be
joined with Madras State/°
The T T N C claimed that 72 and 44 percentage of the total population of the
Devikulam and Peermede taluks respectively are Tamils.'*^ It has, however, been
contended by the Commission that the 72 and 44 percentages in the two cases
have been inflated by the immigration of temporary residents, mostly labourers
working in the plantations who are from Tamil Nadu. The Commission opined in
their Report that the linguistic figures for the Devikulam and Peermede taluks
show that the Tamil migrant population constitutes 46 percent and 30 percent,
leaving behind 26 percent and about 14 percent as the non-floating Tamil-
speaking population in the two taluks respectively.'*^
As against the claims of the Tamils of these two taluks, the Travancore-
Cochin Government sent a counter memorandum to the S R Department.''^ (See
Appendix. VII). The memorandum sent by the proposed Kerala State says, if the
number of persons bom outside the State of Travancore-Cochin is excluded, the
figures for the two taluks will stand as follows:
•"̂ The Hindu., Ill 11/ 1955, p. 4. Lok Sabha Debates, on the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, Vol. I, pp. 133, 134, 139, 140.
"" File No. 66/ 13/ 56- SRN 1, Memorandum regarding Devikulam and Peermede taluks of Travancore-Cochin State, From Madras State to Home Minister Department, M H A, N A New Delhi, p. 1.
"̂ S R C Report., p. 86. ^̂ File No. 20/01/1955, SR-1., Comments on the Report of the States Reorganization Commission
from the Travancore- Cochin government. Regarding Devikulam and Peermede taluk, Ministry of Home affairs, pp. 16-17., vide, File No. 11/03/1956, SR-1, also.
162
Table No. 5. 3.
The census updates submitted by the State of Travancore-Cochin, Regarding
the Tamils of Devikulam and Peermede taluks/''
Taluks
Devikulam
Peermede
Tamil population percentage (total)
71.6
44.3
Tamil population % Bom within Travancore-Cochin
25.9
14.1
Against the proposal of the Travancore-Cochin State, different organizations
of Madras including T T N C submitted a number of memorandums before the S R
Department. One of the memoranda sent by the Chief Minister of Madras states
that the Tamil claims to the two taluks rest mainly on the following grounds:
1. The linguistic majority is clear in spite of the fact that attempts were made
to whittle down the Tamil percentage. The colonization scheme that was
put forward in order to increase the Malayalam speaking percentage in the
Devikulam taluk by introducing immigrants from Travancore-Cochin has
been a failure.
2. The two taluks are contiguous to Madras side and plantation economy has
been developed by Tamilan enterprise and labour.
3. The taluk contains the Periyar and other rivers, which can be developed by
Madras. A dispute with the Travancore-Cochin Government regarding the
utilization of the waters of the Periyar for the generation of electrical
power has been settled only recently; and the general question of sharing
the waters of the rivers ruiming to waste towards the Arabian Sea is under
'*'' File No. 11/13/ 56- SR-1, p. 1. It says that among the total number of 71.6 percentage of Tamil population only 25.9 was bom in Devikulam. Remaining migrated from Tamil land for finding daily routine. Thus, the exact Tamil population of this taluk was mere 25.9 per centage. Thus in the case of Peermede taluk the exact Tamil population comes only to 30.2 percentage.
163
discussion with Travancore-Cochin. The transfer of the two taluks would
go some way towards solving this problem.
4. The attempt to ignore the so-called migrant population in settling the
linguistic complexion of the two taluks is justified because; the migrants
have been settled in the taluks for about fifty years and can qualify as
permanent residents.
5. There are two Pakuthies which are contiguous to Travancore-Cochin,
namely the Pallivasal Pakuthy of the Devikulam taluk and the
Peruvanthanadu Pakuthy of Peermede taluk in which Kerala may be
interested because they include respectively the Head Works of the
Pallivasal project and the township of Mundakayam and rubber estates
owned by the Syrian Christians mostly. These two Pakuthies can be left in
Kerala, if necessary; the two taluks being broken up for this purpose and
the rest of the taluks must in any case be transferred to Madras.''^
Against these claims of Madras State, the Government of Travancore-Cochin
came forward with counter arguments. The summary of the counter arguments
submitted before the Government of India was thus;
1. Devikulam and Peermede are rich taluks yielding considerable revenue
in the shape of agricultural income tax to the State of which they form part
providing to some extent even at the present time waste land for
colonization by fiirther immigration from the plains into these two taluks.
The State Transport system of Travancore-Cochin serves the Kannan
Devan Hill Produce Company (K D H P C) which is the most important
plantation company in the two taluks. With the construction of the Quilon -
"" File No. 11/ 13/ 56- SR-1, the Memorandum submitted by the K. Kamaraj Nadar, Chief Minister, Government of Madras, pp. 2-3.
164
Emakulum railway, which has now been undertaken, the producer of the
two taluks will find a natural outlet via Trivandrum or Cochin port (for
export of tea and pepper) to an even greater extent than is now the case.
2. The Travancore-Cochin Government has plans for the utilization of the
Periyar waters to the extent that they are now available and may think later
on of developing the other rivers. As matters stand at present, the
Travancore-Cochin government has made merely a rough estimate of the
power potential of the Devikulam and Peermede taluks and the results are
as follows:
Table. 5. 4.
The Power Potential of Devikulam and Peermede taluks.
Pallivasal
Sergulam
Lakshmi
Neriamangalam
Pamiar
Kallar
Kumbalam
Kudi
Idukki
Idamala
Total
37,500
48,000
38,000
60,000
25,000
150,000
330,000
20,000
708,500
(in K.Ws.)
-do-
-do-
-do-
-do-
-do-
-do-
-do-
(K.Ws.)
3. The migrant Tamil population, which was to be ignored in settling the
linguistic complexion of the two taluks, is the population, which was bom
outside the State. Since it can be presumed that permanent residents are
165
those who are bom within the area itself, the contention that the laboring
population is not migratory does not seem to be valid. It is extremely
unlikely however that the power potential which will be left in Kerala, if a
portion of the whole of the two taluks is transferred will be adequate for
Kerala's needs. Kerala will therefore, object to the transfer of any portion.
Therefore, it will, be inconvenient if the eastern portion of Devikulam and
Peermede are taken away from Kerala. The proposal to break up the two
taluks will be in contravention of the general principle, which the
commission has tried to follow, namely that, the taluk, as the
administrative unit should not be fiirther divided. A departure from this
principle is likely to have many repercussions. For example, Hosur,
Raichur and Ponneri taluks are in dispute and it may be demanded that
they should be broken up; every area in which a beadwork is located will
have to be re-examined with reference to the claim for breaking up the
concerned taluks. An attempt to divide the two taluks between Madras and
Kerala can become very embarrassing.
Above all, the transfer of Devikulam and Peermede will weaken the financial
position of Kerala. It has been estimated that the financial surplus acquired from
these two taluks is as follows:
Table. 5. 5.
The financial surplus of Devikulam and Peermede taluks.
Revenue of Devikulam and Peermede
Expenditure
Surplus
27.72 (in lakhs)
9.62 -do-
18.10 -do-
166
This is largely accounted for by the agricultural income tax, which is imposed on
the plantations of this area. Kerala is in no position to lose this financial surplus.'**
Above all, the Chief Minister of Travancore-Cochin has claimed that since
Kerala will be the smallest State in the union, all disputes as to border must be
settled in its favour.''̂
The S R Department carefully heard the views of Tamils and Malayalees and
the evidences submitted before them. Finally, the Commission concluded that the
proposals of S R C on these two taluks need no more change. Thus, the S R
Department found that the claim of Travancore-Cochin was genuine. Hence, the
Commission recommended that the two taluks should be retained in Kerala on the
following grounds:
1. The Tamilan majority In Devikulam and Peermede taken together does not
approach an impressive standard (say 70 percent) even if the migrant
population is counted.
2. The migrant population, however, has to be ignored, as they have not yet
become permanent residents.
3. The financial gain to the Kerala State resulting from the retention of these
two taluks in that State and the opportunities for colonization in the high
range and for further development of the area by Kerala cannot be
overlooked.
Moreover, the Government of India gave assurance to the Tamils that Kerala
'** File No. 7/11/ 55 SR I, the memorandum submitted by Travancore-Cochin, Regarding Devikulam and Peermede taluk, before the Ministry of Home Affairs, p. 6. N A I New Delhi.
*^ File No. 11/ 13/ 56- SR-1, the minutes of S R Department on Travancore-Cochin's proposal regarding Devikulam and Peermede, p. 4.
''Ibid.
167
Government may, however, be invited to announce their wilHngness to treat this as
a bi-lingual area and to provide all reasonable facilities for the Tamilans.^^ Thus,
the views of the Government of Travancore-Cochin that Devikulam and Peermede
taluks should be retained in Kerala as recommended by the commission was
accepted by the Government of India. ̂ °
Thus, all the attempts to maintain these taluks with Kerala found justification
and all the attempts from the side of T T N C and Tamil linguistic groups were
neglected. On 28 January 1956 an all-party conference of the Dravid Munneta
Kazhakam (D M K), the Justice Party, the Tamil Arasu Kazhakam, the Communist
and the socialist Parties was convened at Madras. The conference unanimously
reached at a conclusion to call for a Statewide Harthal throughout the Tamil
country to record its protest against the Central Government's decision on 20
February 1956.^' As a protest against the abortion of the proposal to sustain the
Devikulam and Peermede with Madras State, the T T N C and the Tamil groups
held Hartals and demonstrations in these taluks on 7 February 1956. The S R
Act was passed by the President on 31 August 1956.̂ ^ However, inspite of the the
protests going on, the State Legislatures had no further choice, and the Madras
Legislature approved the Bill on 31 October 1956. '̂' Thus, as proposed by the
Commission, Devikulam and Peermede taluks remained in the newly formed
Kerala State, and the taluks were declared as minority linguistic areas, assuring all
the reasonable facilities for the Tamils.
'Ubid.,^.6.
'° File 20/ 01/ 55- SR, M H A, files regarding the States proposals on S R C Report, p.l 1.
' ' Maria John, B., Linguistic Reorganisation of Madras Presidency, p. 160.
" The Malayala Manorama, 8 February 1956. " The Gazttee of India, Extra Ordinary, part II, section I, August 31, 1956, Ministry of Law, New
Delhi.
'* Maria John, B., Linguistic Reorganisation of Madras Presidency, p. 160.
168
Laccadive, Minicoy and the Amindivi Islands
The attention of the Government of India has been drawn to the need for the
development of the Laccadive and Minicoy islands, which then formed part of
Malabar district and the Amindivi Islands, which then formed part of South
Kanara district of Madras State. The Government of Madras had suggested that
the development of these areas is likely to be accelerated, if they are transferred to
and administered by the Centre, and this suggestion has been accepted.̂ ^
Madras' Claim on Forest Land in Malabar
Malabar was one of the linguistically unbalanced districts of Madras State,
situated in a distant and remote comer. In short, physically, economically,
linguistically and culturally, Malabar district was somewhat isolated from the rest
of Madras State. Though the Malayalees formed the majority in the Princely
States of Travancore and Cochin, they found themselves to be a small minority in
Madras presidency. As a result, the Malayalees of Malabar found themselves
neglected by the authorities of a Tamil-Telugu dominated Province and isolated
from the main stream of political activity. Actually, Malabar consists of different
geographical units, i.e., Fort Cochin, a distant and isolated part of Malabar that lies
within the Travancore - Cochin State, Lacadive and Minicoy Islands, another
isolated geographical unit of Malabar, which lies within the Indian Ocean.
Malabar witnessed the struggle against colonialism and for nationalism and
for United Kerala Movement at the same time. Malabar had an agrarian society.
The chief livelihood of the people was agriculture. Among the entire population,
more than 70 percent was directly dependent on agriculture. The possession of
land was held in high esteem and a social group's association to land was an
" Information Bureau., Government of India, press communique., on 31 August 1956.
169
important indicator of its rank in the caste ladder. The correspondence of class and
caste was a noticeable feature in Malabar. ̂ ^ The ownership of the land was
concentrated mostly in the hands of a few jenmies. The life of the peasantry was
worsening day by day under the jenmies. The density of population per square
mile was also much higher than that of the whole of Madras Presidency.^^ The due
share in irrigation facilities was not given to Malabar district compared to the
other districts of Madras Presidency. The increase in population resuhed in the
forcible dependence of more and more people on land, thus resulting in increased
and unprecedented pressure on land. Apart from this, the dual exploitation of
peasants by the Government on one side dLnd jenmies on the other side contributed
much to the deterioration in the condition of rural peasants.^^
In the twentieth century, nationalism acted as a binding force and provided a
wider identity. The nationalist movement in Malabar was more intensive than in
the Princely States of Travancore and Cochin. Feudal oppression and colonial
exploitation was rampant and pushed the people to the wall. The general economic
depression added fuel to the fire. Naturally, the nationalist movement in Malabar
was anti-feudal and anti-colonial in content. The Indian National Congress (I N C)
was less enthusiastic in the struggle against landlordism but the leftist forces
fought against landlordism and colonialism with the same vigor.̂ ^
The United Kerala Movement found its earliest expression in Malabar. It was
a deficit area in food, which it received from surplus areas in Madras Presidency,
and trade channels have been established accordingly. These would be seriously
affected if Malabar was cut off. But the people knew that these administrative
'* Adrian Mayer, Land and Society in Malabar, Bombay, 1952, p. 96.
" Raimon, S., (ed.), The History of Freedom Movement in Kerala, Vol. Ill, p. 288.
''Ibid
'^ Ibid p. 289.
170
problems will no doubt disappear to some extent when Malabar merges into
Cochin and Travancore states.^° Thus, they raised their voice for the earliest
formation of Kerala State. The advocates of United Kerala State from the Malabar
district grieved that the district was an over populated district at the tail end of
Madras presidency. It was deficit in food grains for want of attention. It had been
neglected and underdeveloped in the warring politics between the Andhras and the
Tamils. Therefore, they contended that Malabar was unable to secure its rights for
development in the Madras Presidency.^' The K P C C meetings at Ottapalam
(1921), the Political Meetings at Payyannur (1928), Vadakara (1931), Calicut
(1935), etc., expressed their views and passed resolutions for the formation of a
Malayalam speaking State.̂ ^ The struggle in Malabar for a United Kerala State
held the serious attention of the Government of India. After India's independence,
the Commissions appointed by the Government of India suggested that Malabar be
integrated with Kerala State. There was no objection from Madras to transfer the
district to the proposed Kerala State till 28 March 1956. But the Government of
India sought the States' proposal on the S R C Report. Madras suggested that the
following bits of territories should be transferred from the Malabar district of the
prospective Kerala State to them.
(a) A block of forest land about 24 sq. miles in extent, in Attapadi Block IV,
in the present Malabar district adjoining the Coimbatore border and situated near
Coimbatore town.,
(b) Another block of forestland, (26.94 sq. miles) in Mudalamada Amsom
(village), in the Palghat taluk of Malabar district which adjoins the forest station
*" Dar Commission Report., p. 25.
*' Maria John, B., Studies in Tamil History, p. 123. 62 Paslithil, A., loc. cit, p. 126.
171
known as "Top slip" in Coimbatore district, (see Appendix. VIII).
Madras, incidentally justified the claim that the Hill tribes in the forest in
Attapady Block IV and the people of the Mudalamada amsom (village) were all
Tamil speaking, and all their contacts were with the neighbouring Tamil people of
Coimbatore. Geographically it was only like a figure that goes beyond into
Coimbatore district from Malabar. In these circumstances, the whole village of
Mudalamada could be easily added to Coimbatore district.^'*
As far as these claims are concerned, the two main arguments in favour of
Madras are that the transfer from Kerala to Madras, on the lines proposed, will
result in a slight increase in the forest area in Madras, while these areas themselves
are accessible only from the Madras side. In Madras State the forest area was 20%
and this falls short of the prescribed standard by 13%. Under the terms of the
reorganization plan, when the district of Malabar goes away to Kerala State,
Madras will have only 10%) of its area under forest, which will fall short of the all-
India standard by 23%.^^
The S R Department and the Ministry for Home Affairs very carefully
examined the claims of Madras State and stated that there was little likelihood,
however, of (i) any interference with the water supply to Coimbatore town; an
appropriate provision in general terms is also being made in the State
Reorganisation Bill. No difficulty in approaching the forest area in question
*̂ File No. 11/ 03/ 1956, SR-1., Minutes of Ministry of Home affairs on the Claims of Madras for bits of territories from proposed Malabar district of Kerala, Ministry of Home affairs, p. 1.
^ An ^Amsom' is a portion of the revenue village, or village. Extract of paragraph 4 and 5 of the letter dated 20 January 1956, from the Governor of Madras to Pandit Govind Vallabh Pant, Minister for Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, N A I, New Delhi, pp. 1, 2.
" Personal and Confidential letter, Prakasa, Governor, Rajbhavan, Guindy, Madras-22, to Pandit Govind Vallabh Pant, Minister for Home Affairs, New Delhi, dated, 20 January 1956, p. 2.
172
through Coimbatore district need also be anticipated 66
As regards (ii) the claim was by no means new. It figured prominently in the
debate in the Madras Assembly, on the Report of the States Reorganisation
Commission, having been raised at that time by the leader of the House as also by
Palaniswami Goundar. While it may be true that the approach to this forest block
is through the Coimbatore district, there is no reason to anticipate that access
through Madras territory will be denied to Kerala in future; as for the loss of this
forest area to Madras, acceptance of this minor claim is unlikely to improve
matters very much. Thus finally, Madras gave up the claim on forestland in
Malabar.
In conclusion of this chapter it can be said that the dispute over
Neyyattinkara, Chittur, Coorg, Gudalur, Peermede and Devikulam and Madras'
claim for forest land in Malabar could not make any deviation from the S R C
Report. But it could make a lot of disturbances in each State. In brief, it can be
said that the claims of some parties were emotional and not of geographical and
economic importance.
^ File no. 11/03/1956,SR-1., Minutes of Ministry of Home affairs on the Claims of Madras for bits of territories from proposed Malabar district of Kerala, Ministry of Home affairs, p. 1.
'•'' Ibid,p.2.