DISCUSSION

Telangana Movement Revisited
K Balagopal
P a v i e r starts, and not, as Dhanagare i n n o c e n t l y imagines, w i t h a desire t o understand w h y T e l a n gana happened. There is — and has been — a w o r l d capitalist system o f w h i c h H y d e r a b a d was a n integ r a l p a r t . T h e H y d e r a b a d economy was subject to the ebb and f l o w of t h e crises of the w o r l d capital i s t s y s t e m and t h e i r resolution. The specific l i n k was the e x p o r t of groundnuts and castor f r o m Telangana ( a n d cotton f r o m M a r a t h w a d a ) , w h i c h g r e w apace since the start o f this c e n t u r y . T h i s l i n k i m p o r t e d the Great Depression i n t o H y d e r a b a d a n d l e d to a severe f a l l i n prices, c u l m i n a t i n g i n the ' f i r s t crisis' faced b y t h e peasantry of Telangana as a r e s u l t of w h i c h t h e i r indebtedness increased and t h e y lost m u c h l a n d t o the Deshmukhs. The Deshmukhs themselves w a n t e d t h i s l a n d t o c u l t i v a t e g r o u n d n u t and castor w h i c h again became r e m u n e r a t i v e after 1934. The 'second' crisis came w i t h the i n f l a t i o n and food shortage of the Second W o r l d W a r p e r i o d . I t led to f u r t h e r indebtedness on the p a r t o f t h e peasantry and f u r t h e r alienation of their land by the D e s h m u k h s w h o used i t t o c u l t i vate peanuts and castor w h i c h had appreciated t r e m e n d o u s l y i n value due t o the l u b r i c a t i o n needs ( I suppose) of w a r r i n g E u r o p e . T h i s set the stage f o r the Telangana peasant u p r i s i n g . Upto this point there is nothing u n i q u e l y T r o t s k y i s t about i t , since c a p i t a l - f e t i s h i s m is a disease common to a w i d e spectrum of radical intellectuals. But at this point Trotskyism enters Pavier's a r g u ment i n a p r e d i c t a b l e m a n n e r . T h e capitalist Deshmukhs had their counterparts i n the r i c h peasants w h o resented t h e w a y t h e Deshmukhs cornered a l l the developmental infrastructure provided by t h e N i z a m ' s g o v e r n m e n t . T h e y also resented the fact that t h e y alone had to contribute to the grain levy collected b y t h e state i n t h e 40s, whereas the D e s h m u k h s escaped the b u r d e n using t h e i r influence. I A M n e i t h e r a social scientist n o r do I h a v e t h e courage to describe m y s e l f a ' r e v o l u t i o n a r y socialist', in other w o r d s , I b e l o n g n e i t h e r to t h e category i n w h i c h Dhanagare (December 18, 1982) g a l l a n t l y i n cludes B a r r y P a v i e r ( a n d gets an unpleasant r e b u k e i n r e t u r n ) n o r t o the category i n w h i c h Barry P a v i e r makes b o l d t o i n c l u d e h i m self. I f , nevertheless, I am chancing my arm in commenting upon Pavier's cavalier t r a c t o n T e l a n gana ("The Telangana M o v e m e n t , 1944-51") and his presumptous comments o n Dhanagare's r e v i e w of the book ( M a r c h 5 ) , that is out of a fear t h a t n o b o d y w i t h better credentials is g o i n g to do so. The fear is p r o m p t e d by the fact that Dhanagare, t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d acad e m i c e x p e r t on Telangana, is so unsure of h i m s e l f t h a t he manages to render ' v e t t i ' as b o n d e d l a b o u r and suggests w i t h a n insufferable politeness that perhaps Pavier has not g i v e n enough importance t o i t i n t r y i n g t o understand T e l a n gana. S u c h politeness, to paraphrase a h i s t o r i a n of m a t h e m a t i c s speaki n g o f Spinoza, w o u l d b e engaging w e r e i t not exasperating. I a m e n t i r e l y i n agreement w i t h the second p a r a g r a p h ( a n d perhaps o n l y t h e second paragraph) o f Pavier's comments o n D h a n a gare's r e v i e w . To express m y s e l f i n a language t h a t w i l l m a t c h ( b u t n o t o u t d o ) Pavier's o w n , his book is n e i t h e r social science n o r science of a n y k i n d , b u t a polem i c a l b r e w concocted o u t of Trotskyist theoretical prescriptions a n d p o l i t i c a l proscriptions. Like a l l bad polemics h i s argument begins at t h e end a n d runs in reverse seeking its w a y t h r o u g h hist o r y b y p i c k i n g u p c o n v e n i e n t facts a n d statistics. Where n e i t h e r is available, t h e gap i s f i l l e d i n w i t h a s k i l f u l use of evocative and suggestive phrases and forceful assertion, The was a d i d it cated Telangana peasant u p r i s i n g f a i l u r e . T h e question is: w h y fail? I t i s w i t h a p r e f a b r i a n s w e r to t h i s question t h a t

T h e y were, therefore, r a r i n g t o fight t h e Deshmukhs, a n d a l o n g came the c o m m u n i s t s t o h e l p t h e m . A r m e d w i t h the class-collaborationist Stalin-Mao theory of Popular F r o n t (generally referred to as U n i t e d F r o n t these days) t h e y i n cluded this r u r a l bourgeoisie i n t h e F r o n t , w h i c h i n e v i t a b l y l e d t o its failure. N o w one o n l y needs t o w o r k this logic b a c k w a r d s t o realise h o w t h e p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e — peanuts and castor - is necessitated by the pre-conceived explanation.

Land-Grabbing
Until the Administrative re f o r m a o f Salar J u n g I ( i n i t i a t e d i n t h e 1870s) t h e D e s h m u k h s appear to. have been r e v e n u e farmers. The r e f o r m s consisted i n g i v i n g pattas on l a n d to i n d i v i d u a l s ( n o t neces s a r i l y c u l t i v a t o r s ) and s e t t l i n g l a n d revenue w i t h t h e m . The Deshmukhs w e r e g i v e n 'vatans' of a few villages i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e revenue t h e y had earlier collected. B u t , n o t satisfied w i t h t h a t , t h e D e s h m u k h s used t h e i r influence to grab large chunks o f l a n d d u r i n g the s u r v e y settlement. T h i s started the process o f l a n d - g r a b i n T e l a n gana, m u c h before t h e c u l t i v a t i o n of e x p o r t a b l e crops. T h e f i r s t round of t h e settlement came to a n end b y t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y , and by that time much of the monopolisation of l a n d was complete. A l o n g w i t h t h i s t h e state started collecting land revenue in cash, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e d i n d e b t e d ness of the peasantry and p r o b a b ly further increased l a n d alienat i o n . I say ' p r o b a b l y ' because it is doubtful in the extreme that land alienation through f o r m a l debt was a n i m p o r t a n t m e d i u m o f l a n d grabbing by the landlords. M a n i p u l a t i n g l a n d records, f o r c i b l e occupation on v a r i o u s pretexts, a l l e g a t i o n o f t a x default a n d such l i k e misdemeanours — these are g e n e r a l l y h e l d t o have been the most i m p o r t a n t means used by t h e landlords. ( U s i n g the t e r m Deshm u k h i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y i s misleading. T h o u g h the biggest l a n d l o r d s were Deshmukhs, there were others, b o t h revenue-sharers l i k e makhtedars, a n d those w h o w e r e n o t shares o f revenue b u t o w e d 709

says t h a t the l a n d l o r d s d i d g r a b peasants' land during the period. He has no estimate of t h e l a n d ( i f a n y ) alienated against i t .p a y m e n t o f tax. T h e r e p o r t shows t h a t o u t of t h e 48 cases of debt on l a n d security.) A m o n g the various pretexts used. t h e y c o u l d n o t have i n c l u d e d a m o n g themselves the l a n d l o r d s . Once again. b u t even t h a t w a s n o t a f o r m a l cash l o a n on l a n d security o f the k i n d t h a t gets r e c o r d e d i n g o v e r n m e n t reports. Secondly.l e n d e r was K o m t i ( b a n i a ) s h a h u k a r (10 cases). but mentions as the most i m p o r t a n t cause the peasants' i n a b i l i t y t o p a y t h e revenue d e m a n d . the r e p o r t negates such a supposition. t h e Deshmukhs and other landlords were not t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t moneylenders. F o r o n l y 7 per cent o f t h e l a n d changed hands d u r i n g 1934-49. a n d o n l y 1 p e r cent due t o indebtedness. Pavier's i n f o r m a t i o n is t h a t indebtedness increased by 120 per cent i n Telangana. A d d e d t o this was t h e f o r c i ble seizure of peasants' l a n d . o r inability to p a y the f i n e imposed by the l a n d l o r d ( i n his c a p a c i t y as a r b i t e r o f v i l l a g e disputes). R e d d y raiyats a n d shahukars occur in o n l y 5 cases. and (as a l o o k at t h e r e p o r t reveals) o n l y 2 p e r cent was alienated against debt. t h e most i m p o r t a n t mechanism of Jand-grab b y the l a n d l o r d s was the p e r i o d i c s u r v e y settlements d u r i n g w h i c h l a n d f r e s h l y b r o u g h t under c u l t i v a t i o n by t h e peasantry as w e l l as u n c u l t i v a t e d l a n d was g r a b b e d u s i n g t h e i r influence w i t h the o f f i c i a l dom. o r a n y such alleged 'misdemeanour' c o u l d be used as an excuse. whoever these persons m i g h t have been. w h o w e r e n o n . 1 P a v i e r h i m s e l f comments t h a t in the 12 villages s u r v e y e d in W a r a n g a l d i s t r i c t . t h e l a n d m a y be alienated t o h i m i n order t o o b t a i n cash for payment o f the debt. this t i m e he is able to g i v e an estimate of l a n d alienated against t h i s debt. b y f a r t h e most f r e q u e n t l y i n c i d e n t class o f m o n e y . A b o u t the second W o r l d W a r crisis. almost a l l o f w h o m w e r e Reddys. B u t let u s p u r s u e Pavier's argument further.) I f i t i s t h o u g h t t h a t even i f the l a n d l o r d h i m s e l f i s n o t t h e moneylender.t h e i r d o m i n a t i o n t o occupation o f huge quantities of land. speaking o f t h e same crisis. b u t t h e figure he quotes is disast r o u s f o r his a r g u m e n t . S u n d a r a y y a . Regarding the Depression o f 1930. b u t his w h o l e thesis is so t i e d up w i t h the cash c r o p s . since i t shows that b y far t h e largest recepients of alienated l a n d are i n d i v i d u a l s b e l o n g i n g t o w h a t are called ' c u l t i v a t i n g classes'.p a y m e n t of some p e t t y loan.i n t e r n a t i o n a l c a p i t a l i s t crisis-indebtedness-alienation syndrome that he cannot a f f o r d t o note i t . P a v i e r notes that between 1930 a n d 1939. o n l y 9 per cent of the l a n d h a d changed hands d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s 25 years. one could be n o n . I d o u b t t h a t Pavier is u n a w a r e of t h i s . (Since Reddys are m e n t i o n e d separately. refusal t o d o v e t t i . for w h i c h n o n . indebtedness i n creased by 89 per cent in T e l a n gana. B a s i n g h i m s e l f o n Kesava Iyengar's r e p o r t ol 1929-30. and w h a t is described as a T e l a n g a r a i y a t ' (24 cases).c u l t i v a t i n g i f n o t h i n g else. d e f a u l t o n loan. As a s u p p l e m e n t a r y cause he adds t h e g r a i n loans given by the landlords against w h i c h they grabbed large chunks o f l a n d . t h e T e l a n g a raiyats'. w h o e v e r t h e y m a y be c o u l d not have been landlords. O n the other hand. But what happened t o t h e d e b t ? I f i t was 710 . Actually.

w o u l d m a k e t h e peasantry v u l n e r a b l e t o dispossession f r o m . Not only that. its sanction lies n o t in u s u r i o u s debt. k i n d . a n d affected not c n l y g r o u n d nut. B u t let us t a k e a more detailed l o o k at t h e connection between cash crops and l a n d . S p e a k i n g o f A d i labad. t h e y m e r e l y c o n t r i b u t e d to a process I n h e r e n t i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f f e u d a l Telangana. crisis or no crisis. not o n p r o f i t . and a l l b u t c u l t u r e d i t . t o bear one's share of the cost of ceremon i a l celebrations i n t h e l a n d l o r d s ' household. R S Rao is quoted by a f r i e n d as h a v i n g said t h a t o u r academics have gone w h e r e ever c a p i t a l has gone. and t h e y grabbed m a r g i n a l l y c u l t i v a b l e l a n d t o prevent t h e landless f r o m a c q u i r i n g l a n d — a prerequisite f o r f e u d a l social d o m i n a t i o n . The landlords grabbed c u l t i v a b l e l a n d t o e x t r a c t r e n t (cash. t a n k beds. the bane of f e u d a l T e l a n gana.000 in Nalgonda. b u t to t r e a t t h e m as t h e genesis is m i s l e a d i n g . t h e y grabbed forest and bush l a n d to extract grazing rent ( p u l l a r i in Telugu). nor even d e m o n s t r a b l y the 'last s t r a w ' . the anthropologist H e i m e n dorff mentions that the non-tribal landlords w h o g r a b b e d thousands of acres of l a n d k e p t n e a r l y 70 per cent of it u n c u l t i v a t e d . bushes.started g r a b b i n g l a n d in the 1870s and kept grabbing land r i g h t through to t h e 1940s. the increase w a s o n l y 30. cattle. M u c h of the confusion arises f r o m t h e implicit belief that pre-capitalist societies and social relations h a v e no i n t e r n a l dynamics capable of l e a d i n g to a rupture. and o f course d r y l a n d a n d m a r g i n a l l y cultivable land. L e t me n o t be m i s t a k e n . fallow land ( m u c h of it landlords' land) ranged f r o m 3 to 6 l a k h acres in W a r a n g a l and 4 t o 8 l a k h acres i n N a l g o n d a . castor or no castor.27. B u t between 1935 and 1939 acreage u n d e r g r o u n d n u t increased n e a r l y t h r e e . T h e l a n d lords of Warangal and Nalgonda were no different. a n y t h i n g . Economic crises. j e e t a g a d u ) . land on various counts.42. I n deed. t o p a y t h e fines i m posed b y t h e landlords. by 1. on occasion even u p t o 4 times i n m a g n i t u d e . W h e r e d i d this increase come f r o m ? D i d the landlords b r i n g i n t o c u l t i v a t i o n l a n d classif i e d as ' c u l t i v a b l e waste' b u t actua l l y u n d e r the c u l t i v a t i o n o f the April 30. b u t also castor. sandy wastes.acreage under g r o u n d n u t betw e e n 1939 and 1945 (page 35 of his b o o k ) . b u t Pavier i s interested o n l y i n the increase i n the l a t e r p e r i o d since that appears to have been at least p a r t l y at t h e expense of foodgrains t h e r e b y t y i n g i n w i t h h i s thesis o f indJebtendness a n d l a n d alienation. Vetti V e t t i is not bonded labour. a n d convinced themselves a n d each other t h a t t h e y have understood the w o r l d . and indebtedness (sometimes e x p l i c i t l y .5 p e r cent of s u r v e y e d l a n d in W a r a n g a l and 3. I t c e r t a i n l y takes a r e m a r k able capiitsal-fetishiim. C o n t r a r y t o Dhanagare's assertion (apparently his o w n inference f r o m Pavier's thesis). I n deed. If they wanted t o g r o w peanuts t h e y c o u l d have f o u n d p l e n t y o f suitable l a n d i n t h e i r o w n possession. w h e r e v e r they h a v e gone they have hunted out capital. The lands m o n o polised by the D e s h m u k h s and other l a n d l o r d s included rocks.5 p e r cent in N a l g o n d a ) m u s t have entailed aggressive a l i e n a t i o n of peasants' land. T h e l a n d l o r d s o f Telangana were plunderers in w h o m i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o recognise the anesthetised capitalist v e r s i o n manufactured by Barry Pavier. 1939 and 1945.000 acres in W a r a n g a l and 90. I f n o t h i n g was available t h e peasant w o u l d sell his freedom and become a bonded l a b o u r e r (bhagela. and by 1. I n N a l gonda b o t h c u l t u r a b l e wastes and f a l l o w l a n d . 1983 poor. 711 . and a v a r i e t y o f feudal exactions. 3 Pavier gives details s h o w i n g tine increase of . a n d so on. labelled i t . consistently d u r i n g t h e t h r e e years 1935. gold. T h i s unstated assumption is so s t r o n g in c e r t a i n r a d i c a l acad e m i c circles t h a t they w i l l n o d o u b t soon enshrine it as a dogma (to replace ' S t a l i n i s t ' dogmas. sometimes b y suggestion. let us note that compared to t h e 1 l a k h and odd increase in acreage under groundnut.g r a b .ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL W E E K L Y n o t redeemed w i t h l a n d . b e t w e e n 1939 a n d 1945. It is far f r o m being my contention that t h e l a n d l o r d s d i d not g r a b l a n d . Consequently. M u c h o f i t was never c u l t i v a t e d . a n d the n e x t is crop s e c u r i t y (25 per c e n t ) . T h e m a n t l e o f cashcrop entrepreneurs that Pavier hangs on t h e D e s h m u k h s makes h i m search f o r l a n d a l i e n a t i o n .000 acres in W a r a g a l . but only the penetration of c a p i t a l can achieve change. b u t the D e s h m u k h s themselves grabbed all manner of objects — g r a i n . w i t h such amounts of fallow land on hand ( r a n g i n g f r o m 7 to 20 per cent of total surveyed land) it is difficult t o believe t h a t t h e increase i n acreage u n d e r g r o u n d n u t (2. s t r e a m beds. a n d l a b o u r r e n t ) f r o m t h e peasantry. T h e l a n d l o r d s . A c t u a l l y . b u t o n rent on monopolised land. usable goods o f a n y k i n d . ornaments.000 acres in N a l g o n d a . f a l l o w lands w e r e larger i n acreage t h a n c u l t u r a b l e wastes. including t h e i r freedom. t h e increase was m u c h m o r e r a d i c a l b e t w e e n 1935 a n d 1939. In contrast. the r e p o r t of Kesava I y e n g a r quoted above shows t h a t wheneas debt on l a n d s e c u r i t y amoumtied to j u s t 12. t h e most characteristic of w h i c h is v e t t i . O f t h i s the most frequent is personal s e c u r i t y ( a b o u t 50 per cent of the cases). Crises m i g h t h a v e increased the phenomenon. B u t t h e y w e r e n e i t h e r t h e origin of the phenomenon. B u t the connection that Barry P a v i e r seeks t o establish between land-grab. measured it. nor even m u c h o f i t . N o r d i d t h e p r o cess h a v e a n y v i s i b l e connection w i t h cash crops. t h e landlords never brought ''all the fellow l a n d under castor and g r o u n d n u t c u l t i v a t i o n " . l e a d i n g to a greater i n a b i l i t y to pay taxes. w e i g h e d i t . forests. increased b e t w e e n 1935 a n d 1939. debt on non-land security amounted to m o r e t h a n R s 2 l a k h . thereby depriving them of l a n d ? O r d i d they g r a b t h e p a t l a land of peasants ? B e f o r e we come to e i t h e r conclusion.f o l d . a n d g e n e r a l l y b y t r e a t i n g these f o u r aspects to the exc l u s i o n of e v e r y t h i n g else t h a t is relevant to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Telangana) needs s o m e t h i n g m o r e c r e d i b l e t h a n a r e v o l u t i o n a r y socialist's say-so if it is to be convincing. of course) t h a t peasants cannot rebel i f t h e r e are n o e x p o r t a b l e cash crops a r o u n d . i n t e r n a t i o n a l capitalist crises. stones.000 rupees. to believe that l a n d is grabbed o n l y to g r o w crops. cash crops. T h e y l i v e d . w h a t d i d the peasants p a y against i t ? T h e a n s w e r is. T h e y c e r t a i n l y d i d .

A f t e r t h e mains in the m e m o r y of those s t a r t o f t h e K a r i m n a g a r peasant who l i v e d t h r o u g h those days.15. I w i l l not describe i t i n deh a v e i s w h a t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l syst a i l since t h e r e is a g o o d descript e m i m p a r t e d i s o f l i t t l e use in t i o n i n S u n d a r a y y a ' a book. I n a d d i t i o n .B o o k s r e f e r r e d t o earn e r shows t h a t t h e same p e r i o d witnessed another r e m a r k a b l e change' Bertween 1935 a n d 1939 t h e r e w a s a massive r e s u m p t i o n o f i n a m s b y t h e N i z a m ' s gover n m e n t T h e area r e s u m e d was 6. a n d c a m e u p w i t h totals and at least n o w a serious a t t e m p t l i k e Rs 2 to 3 l a k h ! Considering should be made to understand that Karimnagar's landlords of Telangana.] sava I y e n g a r ' s r e p o r t s w o u l d n o t 1 ' ' E c o n o m i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n s in t h e H y d e r a b a d State. W i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g European feudalism. F r o m a l l these t h e r i c h unfinished A l l t h e books that peasants w e r e n o m o r e exempt have appeared t i l l n o w are p a r t l y t h a n a n y b o d y else. borne estip r o d u c t i o n o f t h e i r l i f e " are i m m a t e o f its m a g n i t u d e c a n b e h a d mensely varied. and not p r o capitalist societies. while bringing it into balance b y t h e e n d o f 1984. the government is introduci n g a n u m b e r o f measures i n t e n d e d t o Increase savings. France's Austerity Measures F R A N C E has i n t r o d u c e d a b r o a d r a n g e of a u s t e r i t y measures to accompany the devaluation of the French f r a n c e i n connection w i t h the European Monetary System r e a l i g n m e n t o f M a r c h 2 1 .as in the case of debt-bondage. a n y t h i n g in the Pavier's n o n . t h e d e f i c i t s o f p u b l i c enterprises a n d l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s are t o b e r e d u c e d b y about F 11 b i l l i o n t h r o u g h i n creases i n e l e c t r i c i t y . I t i s p l e o f T e l a n g a n a f o r a b o u t sevenn o t e v e n corvee a s u n d e r s t o o d i n t y years. the r e s u c r p t i o n it f o l l o w e d B y g i v e n pattas t o peasants. O f course. capable o f b e i n g t a b u l a t e d and b u i l d a g o o d house. These f e u d a l exactions a n d t h e 1348 a n d 1354 ( A D 1935. A l l t h e t o i l i n g castes o f so-called i n t e r n a t i o n a l c a p i t a l i s t the v i l l a g e had to s u p p l y free of system h a d on the economy of charge t o the l a n d l o r d w h a t e v e r Telangana. his p r e m i s e since t h e p r e m i s e is and c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the coat of a c t u a l l y deduced f r o m t h e c o n c l u c e r e m o n i a l functions i n h i s f a m i l y . i n p a r t i c u l a r . sions. . T h e r e i s n o t e n o u g h assertions. 3 The i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n b e l o w is w i t h t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l capitalist t a k e n f r o m the Statistical Yearcrises i s y e t t o b e d e m o n s t r a t e d . or the bha4 F o r e x a m p l e . v o l u n t a r y a n d enforced. or e v e n g r o w statistically analysed.75. w e cannot u n d e r s t a n d t h e i m p a c t V e t t i i n c l u d e d that. i t i s n o t m y contention that this is w h a t realt y happened. H e w o u l d d e m a n d gifts f r o m The conclusions a r e i n h e r e n t in the v i l l a g e r s on special occasions. Those w h o r e descriptive and p a r t l y polemical. by about F 20 b i l l i o n t h r o u g h a combination of s p e n d i n g cubs a n d n e w taxes. t a k e t h e sharp i n gela s y s t e m ) c o n s t i t u t e d t h e t w i n crease i n t h e acreage u n d e r 172 cash crops b e t w e e n 1935 a n d 1939. T h e measures are e x p e c t e d t o r e d u c e domestic demand b y some b i l l i o n francs a n d t o a l m o s t h a l v e t h e t r a d e d e f i c i t i n 1983. the many of w h o m are s t i l l around. I n prea lush crop. Books of the Hyderabad governm e n t f o r t h e y e a r s F a s l i 1344. and peasant had to p e r f o r m labour the dynamics of this oppression service o n the landlord's fields. t h e "relations f i t . T h e p r o g r a m m e also foresees a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e C e n t r a l government's budget deficit. 1929-30". s t r u g g l e in the last decade. was the w a t c h w o r d of the t h a t m e n e n t e r i n t o i n t h e social feudals of Telengana.l a n d c u l t i v a t i o n . a n d t h e desb u t the fact that t h e y . 1983. m o r e t h a n c r i p t i o n i s o f the k i n d t h a t will a n y b o d y else.t r a i n e d i n t e l sess t h i n g s w h i c h t h e landlord lectuals w h o are t a u g h t t o believe w o u l d grab. This was obviously promoted by a desire to a u g m e n t t h e treasury. but w e n t w e l l (however much or little) that the b e y o n d i t . the amounts the latter Notes p l u n d e r e d can o n l y b e guessed [I am g r a t e f u l to A B o b b i l i f o r at. where the the nature.000 ( a b o u t 80 per cent) in Warangali and 6. B u t a second l o o k a t t h e Y e a r . people of some v i l l a g e s c o m p u t e d W e s h o u l d perhaps b e g r a t e f u l t o the amounts their l a n d l o r d had B a r r y Pavier for r e m i n d i n g us that plundered from them in this t h e y w i l l n o t b e a r o u n d f o r ever fashion. t h e p l a n also p r o v i d e s f o r the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a n e w l e v y o f 1 per c e n t o n t a x a b l e incomes a n d for increases i n t h e duties o n alcohol i c beverages a n d tobacco. I n a d d i tion. They d i d not dare to that o n l y those social relations can change the w o r l d w h i c h a r e buy a sturdy pair of bullocks. w e r e l i k e l y t o posimpress u n i v e r s i t y .000 acres about 84 per cent) in Nalgoncta. a n d t h r o u g h s l o w d o w n s i n i n v e s t m e n t a n d stockb u i l d i n g i n these sectors. yester-years would look petty compared to the landlords of the forties. N o w since t h e inams were m a i n l y held by big landlords w h o k e p t m u c h o f their l a n d f a l l o w . gas. the contradictions. though not the Deshmukh's monopoly of his polemics is different from the capital provided by the N i z a m those of the c o m m u n i s t leaders t h a t angered the r i c h peasants. 4 j u d g e m e n t over v i l l a g e disputes I do n o t w i s h to c o m m e n t on and collect fines f r o m t h e offendB a r r y Pavier's conclusions r e g a r d ing p a r t y (often f r o m both paring the failure of the m o v e m e n t ties). T o h e l p finance t h e s o c i a l s e c u r i t y system. w i t h bonded labour. b u t oppressions t h a t c r u s h e d t h e peoi n c u s t o m a n d b r u t e force.c o n t r i b u t i o n i s t o r e village that attracted the land m i n d u s t h a t the j o b o f u n d e r lord's eyes had to be h a n d e d over s t a n d i n g Telangana s t i l l r e m a i n s t o h i m . o r i ginailuy p u t at F 118 b i l l i o n for 1983. add u p t o a fraction o f i t And 2 P Sundarayya. "Telangana w h a t connection t h i s l o o t ( e i t h e r People's Struggle and Its in its magnitude or variation) had Lessons". I n a d understanding why Telangana d i t i o n the l a n d l o r d w o u l d sit in happened. 1939 feudal t e n u r i a l relations (together a n d 1945). t e l e phone. w o u l d n a t u r a l l y g i v e r i s e t o a n increase i n d r y . a n d r a i l r a t e s o f a n average of 8 p e r cent. T h e ' o b v i o u s c a u s e i s t h e revival of we international mark e t after t h e depression of the e a r l y t h i r t i e s . i n c l u d i n g . a n increase i n t h e d u t y o n gasoline i n l i n e w i t h t h e decline i n o i l prices. M u c h of it ref r o m recent experience. Perhaps the s i g n a l v i r t u e o f More generally. c a l l those days say t h a t i t was Pavier's is no exception. Plunder. A l l t h e debts r e c o r d e d i n K e h e l p f u l discussions. To t a k e it as a dogma p r o d u c t s o r services they produt h a t the o n l y d y n a m i c s i t c o u l d ced. w h o p r e c e d e d h i m .

198.3 .ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY April 30.

B Y | S o u t h 325 .April 30. 1983 Regd No. M H .

1983 .ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY April 30.

B Y | S o u t h 325 . M H .April 30. 1983 Regd N o .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful