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.