CHAPTER VIII

REORGANISATION OF STATES AND MERGER OF

SOUTH TRAVANCORE WITH TAMIL NADU

The Reorganisation of the States on the basis of language, a major

factor in national consolidation and integration, came into force almost immediately

after independence. The boundaries of provinces in pre-1947 India had been drawn

in a haphazard manner as the British conquest of India had proceeded for nearly a

hundred years. No heed was paid to linguistic or cultural cohesion so that most of

the provinces were multi-lingual and multi-cultural. The Princely States1

interspersed with them added a further element of heterogeneity. On their departure

the British dissolved their treaty relations with the about 600 Princely States and the

latter were politically integrated into the Indian Union.

The Constitution of India which came into effect on January 26, 1950,

made India a Sovereign, Democratic, Republic, and a Union of States (replacing

1 British India was divided into provinces and princely states. Provinces were governed directly by

British officials, responsible to the Governor-General of India and Princely States were under the

rule of local hereditary rulers who recognized British Sovereignty in return for local autonomy, as

established by treaty.

216

provinces) and territories. The States would have extensive autonomy and complete

democracy in the Union, while the Union Territories would he administered by the

Government of India. The Constitution of 1950 distinguished among four types of

States2.

The case for Linguistic States as administrative units was very

strong.3 Language is closely related to culture and therefore to the customs of

people. In spite of the massive spread of education, the real growth of mass literacy

can occur only through the medium of the mother tongue. Democracy can become

real to the common people only when politics and administration are conducted

through the language they can understand. But this language, the mother tongue,

cannot be the medium of education or administration or judicial activity unless a

State is formed on the basis of such a pre-dominant language. The Indian National

Congress promoted the demand for the Reorganization of States, when it formed

provincial committees separately for the Tamils, Telugus, Kannadians and

Malayalees. Telugus of Madras Presidency and the Tamils of Travancore State

embarked upon a struggle for the realization of their cherished goals. As a result the

question of Reorganization of States assumed a special significance.4

Dar Commission

The Indian National Congress lent direct support to the linguistic

2 Part A states were the former British provinces. They were Assam, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar

Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, East Punjab and Madras. Part B States were the union of former

princely states. They were under the control of Rajapramukars and Uparajpramukars. They were

Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Rajasthan, Saurasthra and Travancore Cochin. The state of Jammu and

Kashmir was given a special status. Part C states were under the Chief commissioners. They were Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur, Manipur, Tripura, Kutch and Vindhya

Pradesh. Andaman Nicobar islands formed the part D states. It is a union territory directly

administered by the Central Government. 3 Bipin Chandra, India after Independence 1947-2000, New Delhi, 1999, p.8. 4 K. Rajayyan, History of Tamil Nadu 1565-1982, Madurai, 1982, p.390.

217

principle as early as 1905, when it supported the demand for annulling the partition

of Bengal, and the formation of a separate unit of the Congress party for Bihar in

1908 and for Sind and Andhra in 1917. In the Congress session of 1917 the principle

was strongly opposed by a group led by Annie Beasant.5 The idea of Linguistic

States was mooted for the first time in 1920 by the Congress in the Nagpur Session.6

Gandhi argued that the redistribution of provinces on a linguistic basis was necessary

if provincial languages were to grow to their ultimate strength.7 In November 27,

1947 Nehru, while addressing the Constituent Assembly, remarked that languages

could became as a binding force or a divisive force. But prime importance was to be

given to the security and stability of India8 not withstanding his government's

acceptance of the principle of Linguistic Provinces.9 The government appointed the

Linguistic Provinces Commission to re-examine the concept of Linguistic States.10

The task was entrusted to the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly11

. It

suggested that a commission should be appointed to enquire into and workout all

relevant matters in connection with the formation of Linguistic Provinces. Thus on

17 June 194812

Nehru and Patel, the Home Minister, consented to the appointment of

a Linguistic Provinces Commission with Justice S.K. Dar as its Chairman and a

retired judge of Allahabad High Court Dr. Panhallall I.C.S. (retd.) and Jaganath

5 Report of the States Re-organisation Commission, New Delhi, 1955, p.13. 6 Proceedings of Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly, 24 November 1955, p.1062. 7 S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, India’s Language Crisis, Madras, 1990, p.21. 8 The Hindu, 2 October 1956, p.5. 9 Ramgopal, Linguistic Affairs of India, New Delhi, 1966, p.71. 10 States Reorganisastion Report, para 58, 1955, p.15. 11 Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission, 1948, p.3. 12 Ibid., p.1.

218

Narayana Lal, member of the Constituent Assembly as its other two members13

.

Accordingly the Dar Commission came into being on 17 June 1948. It submitted its

report on 10 December 1948. The Dar Commission advised against any move to

form Linguistic Provinces for it might threaten the National Unity though it might be

administratively inconvenient.

Moreover, the country was not yet free from the dangers of external

aggression, and was in the grip of an economic crisis of great magnitude etc.14

Thus

the Commission knocked out the linguistic basis. It declared that the redistribution

of provinces could wait till India became a Nation and was fully integrated.15

The

Commission, however, attached greater importance to historical, geographical and

economic considerations. It favoured reorganisation on the basis of administrative

convenience rather than linguistic considerations. Consequently the Constituent

Assembly decided not to incorporate the linguistic principle in the Constitution. But

public opinion was in favour of it and the problem remained politically alive. The

report expressed what Nehru and Patel often thought but could not publicly state for

political reasons. Gandhi wrote that he believed that the linguistic 16

basis was the

correct basis for demarcating provinces.17

The demand for amalgamation had to be

made by Congressmen living in the respective areas. He further said that if it was

unanimous, the Congress could not resist it and that the thing was entirely in their

own hands.18

13 Dar Commission Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission, New Delhi, 1948, p.1. 14 Ibid., p.3. 15 Ibid. 16 Report of the Linguistic Provinces Committees Appointed by the Jaipur Congress (JVP Report)

1949, p. 1. 17 M.K. Gandhi, Linguistic Provinces, Ahamedabad, 1948, pp.1-2. 18 The Hindu, 5 April 1942.

219

JVP Commission

Soon after Dar Commission had submitted its report, the Indian

National Congress met at Jaipur, in December 1948.19

To appease the vocal votaries

of Linguistic States, the Congress appointed a committee (JVP) consisting of

Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel (Home Minister) and Pattabhi Sitaramayya

(President of the Congress) to examine the question afresh. The committee had to

consider the question of Linguistic Provinces in the light of the Dar Commission

report. This committee submitted its report in April 1949 and advised against the

creation of Linguistic States for the time being. If any thing, it was only unity,

national security and economic development that could make a strong, United India.

Language was not only a binding force but also a separating one.20

The JVP Report

was followed by popular movements for States Reorganisation all over the country

which persisted with varying degrees of intensity till 1960. The Telugu - speakers in

Madras province formed the Andhra Pradesh committee to have a Telugu Speaking

State. Nehru conceded the legitimacy of this request, but also regarded the

Reorganisation of Territories as dangerous for it could lead to disunity. There was

real danger that the political system would become so fragmented as to forestall the

emergence of a powerful India. He and his colleagues therefore delayed action in the

Reorganisation of the States. However, in the face of widespread agitation for

linguistic creation of states, beginning with the Telengana Movement, Nehru was

forced to change his mind. On 19 October 1952 a popular freedom fighter,

Pottisriramalu undertook a fast until death over the demand for a separate Andhra

19 The Hindu, 30 December 1948. 20 Ibid.

220

and died after fifty eight days21

(October 19 to December 15, 1952). His death was

followed by three days of rioting, demonstrations, hartals and violence all over

Andhra.22

The government immediately gave in and conceded the demand for a

separate state of Andhra which finally came into existence in October 1953.23

Andhra Kesari T. Prakasam demanded Madras as Andhra capital on the ground that

Andhra could have no such city.24

When it was not accepted by the Madras

Government, Prakasam toned down his demand to claim it as a temporary capital

until they could get Hyderabad.25

The Madras State Government felt it could be

inconvenient and rejected the proposal.26

On October 1st 1953 the Andhra State was

established with kurnool as its capital. In November 1956 nine districts of the

Nizam’s dominions were merged with Andhra State and Hydrabad was made the

capital.

The success of the Andhra struggle encouraged other linguistic groups

to agitate for their own States or for redrawing of their boundaries on a linguistic

basis.27

At this juncture Nehru was not in favour of redrawing India’s internal

administrative boundaries, but he was too much of a democrat to sternly and

consistently oppose the demands.

Fazal Ali Commission

On 22nd

December, 1953, the Prime Minister made a statement in the

21 The Hindu, 16 December 1952. 22 The Hindu, 17 December 1952. 23 Regarding the state of Andhra, twelve districts from the composite state of Madras Presidency

namely, Srikakulam, Visakapatnam, East Godavai, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Kurnool, Anantapur, Cuddapah, Chittoor and Bellary would form the new state of Andhra.

24 The Hindu, 5 December 1953. 25 The Hindu, 4 January 1953. 26 Ibid., 22 February 1953. 27 The Hindu, 23 December 1953.

221

Parliament to the effect that a Commission would be appointed to examine

objectively and dispassionately the question of the Reorganisation of the States of

the Indian Union, so that the welfare of each Constituent unit as well as the Nation as

a whole is promoted. This was followed by the appointment of the States

Reorganisation Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice Fazal Ali, the then

Governor of Orissa and with two other members H.N. Kurnzru, member of Council

of States, and K.M. Panikkar, the then Ambassador of India in Egypt.28

The Commission was required to submit its recommendations to the

Government of India not later than 30th

June 1955.29

This period was subsequently

extended to September 1955.30

Throughout the two years of its work, the

Commission had to face meetings, demonstrations, agitations and hunger strikes.

Different linguistic groups clashed with one another verbally as well as sometimes

physically.

The Commission followed a procedure to analyse the problem. It

invited written memoranda, historical and statistical data, maps from members of the

public as well as public associations interested in the problem of the Reorganization

of States.31

The total number of such documents such as telegrams and printed

resolutions denoting the wishes of particular localities received by the Commission

numbered about 1,52,250 though the number of well considered memoranda did not

exceed 2000.32

Side by side with the memoranda, they commenced interviewing

people from all walks of life. This enabled people to express their views freely and

28 The Hindu, 23 December 1953. 29 Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, New Delhi, 1955, p.1. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., p.1.

222

frankly. The interviews started at New Delhi on 1 March 1954. The Commission

proceeded on 8 April 1954 on an All India Tour, during the course of which they

covered virtually the entire country and visited 104 places which involved an

examination of over nine thousand persons. They continued this work till about the

end of July 1955. The people interviewed included members of political parties,

public associates, social workers, journalists, municipal and district board

representatives and other people representing cultural, educational, linguistic and

local interests.33

The Commission took up first the States in the South, where the

demand for the redistribution of territories was long standing. It adopted the district

as the basic unit for making territorial adjustments. This was because they felt that

districts developed an organic and administrative unity and an economic life of their

own. If any adjustments below the district level were considered necessary, they

should be made only by mutual agreement. To ensure geographical contiguity or

some other administrative or economic consideration, detachment of a part of a

district became imperative in some cases.34

Leading citizens from the Travancore Tamil areas gave evidence

before the States Reorganisation Commission supporting the demand of the TTNC

for merger of Tamil districts with Madras State. The TTNC submitted a

memorandum to the States Reorganisation Commission putting forth its claim for the

merger of the nine taluks of the Travancore Cochin States which are prominently

Tamil with the adjoining Madras State. This claim was opposed by Pattom A. Thanu

33 Ibid., p.2. 34 Ibid., p.81.

223

Pillai, the Chief Minister of the State, in a statement to the States Reorganisation

Commission and on the floor of the State Legislative Assembly.

The objective of the Travancore Tamilnadu Congress was the merger

of the nine predominantly Tamil taluks of Travancore Cochin, with the Madras State.

It was not only legitimate but was absolutely Constitutional. Those taluks were

Thovala, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode and Neyyatinkara in Trivandrum

District, Devikulam and Peermede in Kottayam District and Shenkotta in Quilon

District and also Chittur in Trichur District.35

Of these 9 taluks, the Commission

recommended the merger of 5 taluks, Thovala, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam,

Vilavancode and Shenkotta. The TTNC had to fight for the remaining four taluks.

The States Re-organisation Commission submitted its report on 10

October 1955. Then it recommended the transfer of the four Southern Taluks

Agasteeswaram, Thovala. Kalkulam and Vilavancode and half of Shenkotta taluk to

merge with Tamil Nadu36

retaining the remaining four in the proposed Kerala

State.37

On 6 November 1955 A. Thanu Pillai met Jawaharlal Nehru and emphasised

the need to merge Tamil speaking areas of Neyyattinkara, Devikulam, Peermede and

Chittur with Kerala. On November 7, 1955 the Chiefs of twenty six Pradesh

Congress Committees met in a conference with the Congress President V.M. Dhebar

in the chair to discuss the States Reorganisation Commission report.38

Jawaharlal

Nehru, Maulana Azad and Pandit Pant also participated in the discussion. The

Madras Legislative Assembly took up the matter for consideration. On 21

35 Ibid., p.85. 36 Kumari Kadal (Tamil Fortnightly), Nagercoil, November 1968. 37 The Hindu, 11 October 1955. 38 Dinamalar, 22 October 1955.

224

November 1955 C. Subramanian, the leader of the Congress party took up the report

and moved a motion. He initiated the discussion P. Jeevaandhan, M. Chahayan, S.

Thinakaraswami, Muthusonnara Raja and M.V. Balakrishna participated in the

Assembly discussions and expressed their views in favour of the stand of the TTNC.

Following this discussion the Council passed a resolution in support of the proposal.

End of Congress Rule

The report of the States Reorganization Commission was taken up in

the Travancore Cochin Legislative Assembly on 22 November 1955. M. Panampalli

Govinda Menon moved a motion. R. Ponnappanadar contended that the Tamil

speaking areas were neglected. A Kunjan Nadar moved a resolution urging the

Government of India to secede all the 9 Tamil taluks from Travancore Cochin and

merge them with Tamil Nadu.39

The States Reorganization Bill was discussed in the

Parliament on 19 December 1955.40

A. Nesamony argued in support of the TTNC

demand. On 21 December 1955 Panampalli Govinda Menon and K. Kamaraj held a

joint discussion along with the Congress Four – men Commission over the issue of

Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Opposing the report of the Commission, meetings and

hartals were conducted throughout the Tamil areas. TTNC submitted a

memorandum to Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress President W.M.Dhebar. But

they rejected the TTNC demand.

On 28 January 1956 an All Party Conference including the Dravida

Munnetra Kazhagam, the Justice party, the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam, the Communist

and the Socialist party was convened at Madras. This conference decided to call for

39 The Hindu, 24 November 1955. 40 Dinamalar, 15 December 1955.

225

a State wide hartal on 20 February 1956 throughout the Tamil Country to record its

protest against the Central Government decision.41

As a protest against the loss of

the High Ranges and the river waters the Tamils observed a hartal. All parties

decided to take out processions. They got the Dy. S.P.’s permission to conduct a

meeting. They were permitted to have it from 7 to 9 A.M and 12 Noon to 3 P.M.42

But the meeting took place at 4 P.M. The S.I ordered the crowd to disperse and

arrested about 750 persons, and many of them were injured. The follies of the

Kamaraj Ministry threw the vital interest of the Tamils into jeopardy. In the

meanwhile changes took place in the Travancore Cochin Ministry. Six members of

the Congress State Assembly opposed the recommendation of the State

Reorganisation Committee to merge the Tamil areas with Tamil Nadu and resigned

from the party. Hence the ministry under the leadership of Panampalli Govinda

Menon lost its majority and it too submitted its resignation on 11 March 1956. With

that the 13 year Congress rule came to an end. The Rajpramuhar could not find an

alternative interim ministry and he intimated this to President Rajendra Prasad. The

President introduced Presidents rule over Travancore Cochin, under Article 356 of

the Constitution.43

The Bill was passed in the Madras State Assembly on 6th April

1956.44

The Indian Constitution proposed to form sixteen Constituent Units,

to be called States and three administered territories. The Madras State should

include only the five taluks of Travancore Cochin namely - Agasteeswaram,

41 Ibid., 29 January 1956. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Legislative Assembly Debates, Vol. XXXIII, Madras, 1956, p.300.

226

Thovalai, Kalkulam, Vilavancode and Shencotta and the districts of Malabar and

South Kanara and the Kollegal Taluk of the Coimbatore district were to be detached

from Madras.

The main claim advanced on behalf of Madras was for the addition of

the Tamil-speaking areas of Travancore Cochin. This claim rested mainly on

linguistic considerations and grounds of geographical contiguity and relates to nine

taluks namely Thovalai. Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode and Neyyattinkara

in Trivandrum District. Devikulam and Peermedu in Kottayam District, Shenkotta in

Quilon District and Chittur in Trichur District. When the Commission visited

Trivandrum on 25, May 1954, K. Kamaraj the Chief Minister of Madras suggested

that the taluks should be merged with Tamil Nadu.45

The demand regarding the Tamil speaking taluks was considered by

the Commission. The percentage of people with different mother tongue in the nine

taluks were noted. The figures showed that in the four Southern taluks namely

Agasteeswaram, Thovala, Kalkulam and Vilavancode the percentage of Tamil

speaking people was above 79%. The wishes of the people of this area had been

clearly expressed and there was no particular reason why those wishes should not be

respected. The Shenkotta taluk was particularly an enclave in Tirunelveli District in

which it should be merged.46

The percentage of Tamil speaking people in this taluk

was about 93, physically and geographically it belonged to Tirunelveli District with

which it should merge.

45 The Express, 5 July 1954. 46 Report of States Reorganisation Commission, 1955, p.86.

227

On 16 of January, when the government issued a communiqué

denying the rights of Devikulam and Peermedu to merge with the Madurai district

and that of a portion of the Shenkotta taluk with the Tirunelveli District, the whole of

Tamil Nadu protested irrespective of party47

affiliation.48

It was an insult to the

Tamils because the parameters for merger varied from territory to territory and from

region to region.

The Joint Committee of Travancore Cochin Government and the

Madras Government sat for deliberation on 2 of July. There was readjustment of

territory between the Travancore Cochin Government and the Madras Government.

Though Fazil Ali Commission recommended that Shenkotta taluk be given to Tamil

Nadu, the Joint committee gave only the eastern portion of Shenkotta to Tamil Nadu.

So far as Shenkotta is concerned it is along the water shed line.49

The Travancore

Cochin government sabotaged the deliberations of the Joint Committee. They

reiterated their demand as the Kallada and Achankoil rivers originated from the

forests of Shencotta taluk and the Travancore government did not want to lose them.

The Madras government then agreed on condition that there must be a division along

the watershed line. Accordingly the Achankoil river forms the boundary between

Shencotta taluk and Quilon taluk.

Devikulam and Peermedu stood on a somewhat different footing.

These were hilly areas which for various economic and other reasons are of great

importance to the State of Travancore Cochin. The Tamilians accounted for 57

percent of the population in the two taluks taken together. The percentage of Tamil

47 Lok Sabha debates on the Report of the States Reorganization Commission, July 1956. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid.

228

speaking people in the Devikulam and Peermedu taluk was 72 and 44 respectively.

Geographically, it lay contiguous to Madurai district. During the South Indian

Rebellion of 1800-1801, the High Ranges served as an area of activity of Tamil

Rebels.50

Apart from these factors Devikulam and Peermedu with their rolling hills,

heavy rainfall, green forests and numerous rivers were of vital importance for Tamil

Nadu. For the two major rivers, Periyar and Pampa, which flowed from the High

Ranges, offered the only source of irrigation to the parched districts of Coimbatore,

Madurai, Ramanathapuram and Tirunelveli.51

It was contended that the fairly large

Tamil population of these two taluks was due to a floating corps of labourers

employed by plantations in this area. In Devikulam and Peermedu the Tamil migrant

population constitutes 30 percent and 46 percent respectively. But the Commission

included only 14 percent and 26 percent as the non-floating Tamil speaking

population in the taluks respectively.52

According to the report of 1931, 1941, and

1951, Tamilians formed the majority.53

Most of the Churches in the area conducted

their service in Tamil.54

1931 1941 1951

Devikulam

Tamil 51,730 53,394 62,130

Malayalam 3,894 8,282 16,05055

Peermedu

Tamil 24,776 31,911 42,57056

Malayalam 19,284 31,748 50,440

50 K. Rajayyan, op.cit., p.396. 51 Ibid. 52 The Hindu, 22 November 1955. 53 Lok Sabha debates on the Report of the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), December 1956. 54 Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress Party (TTNC) Supplementary Memorandum, 25 May 1954, p.3. 55 Ibid. 56 Memorandum of Chellaswamy to Congress High Command, 1954, p.6.

229

In Devikulam taluk the Malayalam speaking people were far fewer

than the Tamil speaking people. The number of Tamilians who had been born

within the Travancore Cochin State was nearly 50% more than the Malayalees who

had been born in the State.57

According to the Census Report of 1951 in Peermedu

the Tamilians were in a majority in every village except in Peruvanthanam. It is a

known fact that these taluks were developed by or with the assistance of Tamilians

and that the Malayalam population entered very late. This area had been more easily

accessible from the Madras State than from the Travancore-Cochin State.

Devikulam and Peermedu were originally under some local rulers

called Mannadirs and Madura Pandya Kings and never had been the territory of

Travancore till 1889.58

The Tamils were the earliest inhabitants of this area.59

They

owned quite a large extent of area in these two taluks. The Tamils owned nearly

ninety percent of the Cardamom estates and the remaining estates were in the hands

of the Europeans. The Tamilians also owned extensive paddy lands.60

Only with the

opening of the Pallivasal road, did the Malayalees from the west begin to penetrate

into this area and it would be preposterous to say that these taluks were the land of

Malayalees.61

More over, this Constituency had sent two Tamil members to the

Travancore Cochin State Assembly.62

Inorder to reduce the strength of the Tamils in

that area the Travancore government cancelled the concessions to scheduled castes in

educational institutions from May 1955. The representation of the Travancore Tamil

57 Government of Madras, G.O. No. 167, p.15, State Archives, Trivandrum. 58 Lok Sabha debates on the Report of the States Reorganization Commission, December 1955. 59 Memorandum of Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress to States Reorganization Commission, 14 April

1955, p.3. 60 The Hindu, 29 March 1955. 61 Memorandum of TTNC to States Reorganisation Commission, 14 April 1954, p.3. 62 Viduthalai, 17 October 1955.

230

Nadu Congress seeking withdrawal of this order was not accepted by the

Government. To eliminate Tamils from these areas, the Government of the Praja

Socialist party started colonisation of Malayalee labourers in these areas and evicted

Tamilians who had lived in these estates for several generations.63

There were about

6000 kanganies and Sub-kanganiies who controlled the labour population there. The

Malayalees were imported late in the Meliberia Estate in Peermedu and Thalayar

Estate in Devikulam.

The Commission felt that considering their area which was about

twelve percent of the whole area of Travancore – Cochin State, Devikulam and

Peermedu had a comparatively meagre population and with the development of the

State would be able to relieve some of the burden on the heavily congested littoral

areas of the State.64

The natural advantage of this area is that it contains the high

ranges of Anamalais and some of the highest peaks south of the Himalayas which are

the source of the most important rivers of the State like, the Periyar.

The Tamil side of the case was that although much of the population

of Devikulam and Peermedu had been originally migrant, it constituted a majority

and that in the 1954 elections, the Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress won both the

Seats to the Assembly from the areas sought to be transferred to Tamil Nadu.65

Language as the sole criteria for territorial readjustment particularly in the areas

where the majority commanded by a language group is only marginal did not find

favour with the Reorganisation Commission. The Dar Commission had come to the

63 Memorandum of Chellaswamy to Congress High Command, 1954, p.1. 64 Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, 1955, p.86. 65 Ibid., p.87.

231

conclusion that it would not be proper to describe any area as unilingual unless it was

spoken by at least 70 percent. Any area below that should be considered as bilingual

or multilingual as the case may be. The Commission opined that the mere fact that a

certain language group has a substantial majority in a certain area should not be the

sole deciding factor. However, the Madras State claimed that as the State has no

major rivers except Cauvery, it could bring additional areas under irrigation if these

two taluks are included in the Madras State. Another consideration was that the

Madras State did not have adequate resources from the point of view of forests,

whereas the new Kerala State will have rich forests in the remaining taluks of

Travancore – Cochin State and in Malabar and South Kanara District. Hence the

Madras government’s plea to merge these taluks with Madras State with some border

adjustment.66

As far as Neyyatinkara was concerned the Commission went against

the facts and the aspiration of the taluk.67

The Tamils of Neyyattinkara had to

educate their children only in Malayalam, since the government was for establishing

only Malayalam schools here and encouraging Malayalam medium. The people of

this taluk were given the option of either educating their children in Malayalam or

allowing them to go illiterate. Hence the educated Tamils learnt Malayalam but

spoke Tamil at home.68

During the enumeration the TTNC representatives exhorted

the people to see that they were enumerated as Tamilians.69

For this they were

66 Sengol (Tamil Weekly), Madras, 1 January 1956. 67 Memorandum of TTNC to Indian National Congress, 3 November 1955, New Delhi, 1955, p.3. 68 Memorandum of TTNC to Prime Minister of India, 18 November 1955, p.6. 69 A. Nesamony’s speech in Lok Sabha, 14 and 15 December 1955, New Delhi, p.12.

232

prosecuted before the I Class Magistrate at Neyyattinkara.70

But the Commission did

not consider these facts and simply recommended that Neyyattinkara taluk would

form part of Kerala. They concluded Neyyattinkara is predominantly Malayalee ie,

it has 86 percent Malayalam speaking people. As regards Chittur, it was claimed

that the Tamil speaking population was 95 percent.71

The Commission hence ruled

in favour of Travancore. It had been claimed that with the loss of South Travancore

or Nanjil Nadu, the main crop producing area in the State, the food deficit of the

prospective Kerala State will become worse. The substantial contribution from the

Tamil taluks particularly from Thovala, Devikulam and Peermedu to the revenue of

the State of Travancore-Cochin was also taken into account. The argument that the

transfer of these Tamil taluks might impair the economy of the State seemed to carry

a lot of weight.72

It was argued that the economy of the Kerala State will not be

adversely affected under the arrangements which have been proposed, as the fairly

heavy revenue from Devikulam and Peermedu will be retained by it and the rice

production in Neyyattinkara taluk will belong to the State. Incidentally arguments

based on the assumption that Nanjil Nadu, was the granary of Travancore Cochin

State seem to lack substance. Estimates of food production in Nanjil Nadu vary

considerably but the most liberal estimates given by the Travancore Cochin

government were accepted.73

Nanjil Nadu was not self-sufficient in food. The result

was that neither the State of Travancore Cochin nor the Kerala State will actually be

70 Memorandum of TTNC to Congress Four Men Committee, 19 November 1955, p.1. 71 Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission, p.5. 72 Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, 1955, p.92. 73 Proceedings of the Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly 1954, Vol.XI, p.2132.

233

losing a food surplus area if Nanjil Nadu was transferred to Madras.74

The power

potential which was available in Devikulam and Peermadu taluks will continue to be

utilised by Travancore-Cochin or Kerala.

Also the advocates of United Kerala argued that the Tamil taluks were

part and parcel of Kerala geographically, culturally and economically and the

western ghats divided Travancore from Tamil Nadu. This was a specious argument

as Shencotta lay beyond the ghats. But the Western ghats were in no way an

impediment for their merger with the adjacent Madras State. The Southern Tamil

Taluks produced enough rice and salt75

and are rich in minerals like monazite,

illuminate and zircon. Moreover the land contained materials for atomic energy.

The forests are endowed with rubber, tea, coffee, pepper and cardamom.76

Hence the

Travancore government was not willing to give these places to Tamil Nadu.77

The

TTNC stressed the fact that these areas were inaccessible from the west, as the

Narimangaam bridge and Pallivasal road had not been built.

TTNC charged the Commission with bias towards Malayalees.78

The

States Reorganisation Commission had not considered the facts and aspiration of the

Tamil people of this area.79

The SRC stated “The wishes of the people of this area

have been clearly expressed and there is no particular reason why these wishes

should not be respected.80

It ignored the wishes of the people of Devikulam and

74 Report of the States Reorganization Commission 1955, p.92. 75 A. Nesamony Welcome Address, Boundary Conference, 6 May 1950, Kanyakumari, p.19. 76 Memorandum of TTNC to Linguistic Provinces Commission 1954, p.8. 77 Memorandum of Chellaswamy to Congress High Command, 1954, p.4. 78 TTNC Petition to Prime Minister of India, 20 October 1955, p.3. 79 Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress Memorandum to Indian National Congress, 3 November 1955,

New Delhi, p.3. 80 Report of States Reorganisation Commission 1955, para 293.

234

Peermedu, as expressed in a convincing manner during the last two General

Elections, when the merger of these two taluks with Madras State was made an

election issue.81

It recommended the inclusion of Devikulam, Peermedu and

Neyyattinkara taluks in Kerala on the ground that it would relieve the congestion of

the littoral areas by way of colonisation.82

TTNC opposed this on the ground that the colonisation in these taluks

was impractical, it will dislodge the Tamils from the taluks and also it explained that

the rivers referred to by the States Reorganisation Commission were only mountain

stream flows from the forests of the adjoining taluks and these rivers are necessary

for the arid lands of the Madras State.83

When the question came up in the debates of the Travancore Cochin

Assembly, TTNC demanded that the nine taluks of Travancore Cochin State should

merge with Tamil Nadu. The documents and evidences regarding this was put

before the Reorganisation Commission.84

TTNC pointed out to the Commission that

on an average it came to only 6 cents of paddy land per head which is not enough to

feed an individual for a year. This argument was accepted by the Commission and

they turned down the contention that Nanjilnadu was the granary of Travancore-

Cochin.

Since the TTNC candidate failed to win the election from Thovala

constituency it was argued by Kerala that Thovala must be given up by TTNC. This

demand was put forward before the States Reorganisation Commission. T.S.

81 The Hindu, 30 March 1950. 82 The Hindu, 11 October 1955. 83 Text of A. Nesamony Speech in Lok Sabha, 14 and 15 December 1955, New Delhi, p.9. 84 Lok Sabha Debates on the States Reorganisation Commission, December 1955.

235

Ramaswami was then the representative of the PSP. Also when Jaya Prakash

Narayan and Asoka Metha came down South they also conceded that Thovalai must

be merged with Madras. When this question came up again in the debates of

Travancore Cochin Assembly, TTNC stuck to its demand. They sent a number of

representations to the Madras government to include the Devikulam and Peermedu

taluks in the Madras State.85

A. Nesamony, the President of the TTNC, met M.P. Sivagnanam Gramani

on 15 October and the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, Kamaraj, on 16 October 195586

and held discussions in this connection. On 30 October 1955 the general body of the

TTNC met at Eraniel. A. Nesamony presided over the meeting. It was resolved to

co-operate with Tamilnadu Congress Committee and the Government of Madras to

get the four taluks Devikulam, Peermedu, Chittur and Neyyattinkara. On 28 January

1956 an All Party Conference including the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the

Justice Party, the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam, the Communist and the Socialist parties

was conducted at Madras. This conference decided to call for a State wide hartal in

February 1956 throughout the Tamil country to record its protest against the Central

Governments decision to give Devikulam and Peeremedu to Kerala.87

In July 1956

in Parliament meeting A. Nesamony argued that the decision to give the western

portion of Shenkotta to Travancore-Cochin was unjust and hence it should be

reconsidered and the whole of Shencotta be given to Tamil Nadu. Moreover he also

opposed the merging of Thovalai, Agasteeswarm, Kalkulam and Vilavancode taluk

85 Government of Madras G.O. No.167, p.18. 86 The Hindu, 18 October 1955. 87 Ibid.

236

with the Tirunelveli District. The rights of Malayalees who would become a

minority in the district must be safeguarded. Their rights to education and culture

must be legally recognised by law. The Tamilians should not repeat the mistake

committed by the Malayalees against the Tamilians.

The TTNC leaders felt that the Congress High Command and the

Madras Government failed to safeguard the welfare of the Travancore Tamils. As a

result the Devikulam, Peermedu question came to be raised frequently at political

forums.

It was the human touch that the TTNC wanted to highlight. The Tea

bushes of the Devikulam taluks were planted by the tender fingers of the Tamilians,

fed by the bones and ashes of their ancestors, nurtured by the blood of the Tamilians

and watered by the sweat of their brow. It was said that Thovala did not return a

Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress member but the fact was that the candidate was

setup by the Travancore government. The candidate of Tamil Nadu Congress from

the Nagercoil constituency which includes Thovala was returned to the Lok Sabha

with a thumping majority. The eastern portion of Chittur taluk was an enclave of the

adjoining Coimbatore District in the Madras State.88

It had got a predominantly

Tamil speaking population. Hence it should form a natural part of the Madras State.

The Congress Party was the ruling party at the Centre. The TTNC

was clearly aware of the need for the support of the Congress Party. The Executive

Committee of the TTNC authorised A. Nesamony to join the Congress.

Padmanabhapuram which housed the palace of the erstwhile Travancore Maharajas

88 Memorandum of TTNC to Indian National Congress, 14 April 1954, p.3.

237

was also their ancient capital. It was situated within the newly formed Kanyakumari

District of Madras State. It was situated about thirty three miles South of

Trivandrum. The palace was indeed a historical monument. If the antiquities were

removed and transferred to Kerala the palace would lose part of its importance. So

the question of the removal of the antiquities to a place in Kerala for proper care was

ruled out. It was accepted that the Travancore Cochin Government would be able to

give the needed attention89

because of its proximity and greater experience and

knowledge of its special requirements and value. An agreement was reached

between the States of the new born Kerala and Madras.90

Accordingly, the Kerala

State would retain the Pamanabhapuram palace and the adjoining museum along

with the staff attached thereto. Besides, the cost of their maintenance would be

shared equally between Madras and Kerala.91

The approval of the Madras

government was made necessary for the removal of any article from there. As far as

the Kerala guest House in Cape Comorin was concerned the Madras Government

leased it to Kerala government by an agreement for ninety nine years.92

On the northern border of Tamilnadu certain Tamil areas were

integrated with Andhradesa. The Tamil Nadu Association and the Tamil Nadu North

Boundary Protection Committee organised an agitation for the return of these areas.

Andhradesa claimed certain villages from Tamil Nadu. The Nehru government

appointed H.V Pataskar Commission to settle the issue. On the basis of his report a

settlement was effected. A large part of Tirutani taluk was given to Tamil Nadu,

89 Ibid. 90 Government of Travancore-Cochin, States Reorganization Department, Copy of Proceedings

No.SRN5-26200, 27 September 1956. 91 Ibid. 92 K. Rajayyan, op.cit.,p.398.

238

while an equally large area from Ponneri and Tirunallur taluks was transferred to

Andhradesa.93

This territorial adjustment conferred no benefits upon the Tamils.

Though they won the shrine at Tirutani, they lost the irrigation project on the

Araniyar.

The Dissolution of the TTNC

On 16 March 1956 the States Reorganisation Bill was presented in the

Parliament.94

Subsequently the States Reorganisation Bill of 1956 was introduced in

the Madras Legislative Assembly.95

On 31 March 1956 the Chief Minister of Tamil

Nadu, K. Kamaraj gave his consent to the Reorganisation of the States.96

The States

Reorganisation Bill and the amendment of the law were approved by both the

Houses of Parliament and won the Presidents assent to became law. As per the

States Re-organisation Thovala, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode and a part

of Shenkotta taluk became part of Madras State.97

Travancore Cochin State lost Kanyakumari District, but gained

Malabar, a part of Madras Presidency and some portions of Kasarcode Taluk

belonging to the same neighbour. Madras State thus constituted had a population of

about 30 millions, covered an area of about 50170 sq.miles, a compact and integrated

territory, and was to became one of the important units of the Indian Union with a

history of stable administration and continuous economic development.

The Madras Government was very much disappointed over the loss of

Devikulam and Peermedu. Kamaraj with an amicable and nationalistic outlook

93 Ibid. 94 The Hindu, 17 March 1956. 95 Dinamalar, 18 March 1956. 96 The Hindu, 1 April 1956. 97 Report of the States Reorganisation Commission 1955, para 30.

239

stated, “whether forests or hills, all is in India”. The States Reorganisation Act fixed

November 1, 1956 as the day for separation. TTNC felt that they had achieved a part

of their aim though they lost Peermedu and Devikulam. It was not in their interests

to oppose the Congress Party at this juncture. So they accepted this partial success

and celebrated it as a victory of the Tamilians.

On November 1 1956, TTNC decided to celebrate the integration in a

grand manner. A meeting was arranged in the S.L.B School premises, Nagercoil.

Chief Minister Kamaraj and his ministers were also invited.98

A. Nesamony

Presided over the meeting. The TTNC members put forth many demands to

Kamaraj. But Kamaraj replied99

that it was not fair to make demands on the first day

itself.

The Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress Party which was started for the

liberation of the Tamilians from the oppression of the Malayalees had achieved its

goal. TTNC Leaders and Volunteers met on 2 November 1956 at Hawa talkies in

Eraniel. At that meeting the ‘pitcher’100

the TTNC symbol was given to Kamaraj.

This was a partial surrender of the TTNC to the Congress Party. There was wide

spread criticism of this decision. Yet the leaders met the people and explained to

them the rationale behind this. On January 26, 1957 the last meeting of the TTNC

Party was held at Allan Memorial Hall under the leadership of A. Nesamony. At that

meeting the TTNC was dissolved. The TTNC and the Indian National Congress

98 Interview with Mr. Johnson, Sub Registrar, 01.01.2004, Nagercoil. 99 A.A. Razaak, Nesamony Oru Charithra Thiruppam, p.363. 100 This Silver Pitcher was once presented to A. Nesamony in the Edalakudy meeting, while

celebrating the victory of 1952 election. Then it was presented to Kamaraj.

240

became one body.101

The merger brought about many changes in all walks of life in

the four taluks. However it can not be said that the Central Government and the

Madras State Government went out of their way to protect the interests of the

Travancore government at the expense of the interests of the Tamilians.

101 Dinamalar, 27 January 1957.