no edit summary
>Vijethnbharadwaj (Added link) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|1946–1951 peasant rebellion in India}} | |||
{{For|the movement for Telangana's statehood|Telangana movement}} | |||
{{good article}}{{Use Indian English|date=June 2014}} | {{good article}}{{Use Indian English|date=June 2014}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2014}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=June 2014}} | ||
{{Infobox military conflict | {{Infobox military conflict | ||
| conflict = Telangana Rebellion | | conflict = Telangana Rebellion <br> Telangana Sayuda Poratam | ||
| partof = | | partof = The [[Cold War]] and the [[Indian independence movement]] | ||
| image = {{multiple image|border=infobox|perrow=2/2/2|total_width=400 | | image = {{multiple image|border=infobox|perrow=2/2/2|total_width=400 | ||
|image1= | |image1= | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
| image_size = 350px | | image_size = 350px | ||
}}The '''Telangana Rebellion''' of 1946–51 was a communist-led insurrection of peasants against the [[Hyderabad State|princely state of Hyderabad]] in the region of [[Telangana]] that escalated out of agitations in 1944–46. | }}The '''Telangana Rebellion''' popularly known as '''Telangana Sayuda Poratam''' ([[Telugu language|Telugu]] : '''తెలంగాణ సాయుధ పోరాటం''') of 1946–51 was a communist-led insurrection of peasants against the [[Hyderabad State|princely state of Hyderabad]] in the region of [[Telangana]] that escalated out of agitations in 1944–46. | ||
Hyderabad was a [[Indian feudalism|feudal monarchy]] where most of the land was concentrated in the hands of landed aristocrats known as | Hyderabad was a [[Indian feudalism|feudal monarchy]] where most of the land was concentrated in the hands of landed aristocrats known as Doras in Telangana. Feudal exploitation in the region was more severe compared to others of India; the {{Lang|te|Doras}} had complete power over the peasants and could subject them to agricultural slavery. Conditions worsened during the 1930s due to the [[Great Depression]] and a transition towards [[commercial crop]]s. In the 1940s, the peasants started turning towards communism, organised themselves through the [[Andhra Mahasabha]] and began a rights movement. catalyzed by a food crisis that affected the region following the end of the [[Second World War]], the movement escalated into a rebellion after the administration and the {{Lang|te|durras}} attempted to suppress it. | ||
The revolt began on 4 July 1946, when a local peasant leader was killed in the village of Kadavendi, [[Warangal district|Warangal]], by the agents of a '' | The revolt began on 4 July 1946, when a local peasant leader was killed in the village of Kadavendi, [[Warangal district|Warangal]], by the agents of a ''dorra''. Beginning in the districts of [[Nalgonda district|Nalgonda]] and Warangal, the rebellion evolved into a revolution across Telangana in response to continued repression by the [[Nizam of Hyderabad|Nizam]] [[Mir Osman Ali Khan]] and later [[Kasim Razvi]]. The [[Hyderabad State Forces]] and the police, combined with the paramilitary [[Razakars (Hyderabad)|Razakars]], were unable to suppress it and were [[rout]]ed, while the rebel forces went on a successful [[guerrilla]] offensive. | ||
The rebels established a parallel system of government composed of {{Lang|te|gram rajyams}} (village [[communes]]) that caused a [[social revolution]] where [[Caste system in India|caste]] and gender distinctions were reduced; women's workforce participation including in the armed squads increased and the conditions of the peasants significantly improved with [[land redistribution]]. At its peak in 1948, the rebellion covered nearly all of Telangana and had at least 4,000 villages directly administered by communes. It was supported by the left-wing faction of the [[Hyderabad State Congress]], many of whom later joined the [[Socialist Party of India]] when it was formed by the [[Congress Socialist Party|Congress Socialist Caucus]]. | The rebels established a parallel system of government composed of {{Lang|te|gram rajyams}} (village [[communes]]) that caused a [[social revolution]] where [[Caste system in India|caste]] and gender distinctions were reduced; women's workforce participation including in the armed squads increased and the conditions of the peasants significantly improved with [[land redistribution]]. At its peak in 1948, the rebellion covered nearly all of Telangana and had at least 4,000 villages directly administered by communes. It was supported by the left-wing faction of the [[Hyderabad State Congress]], many of whom later joined the [[Socialist Party of India]] when it was formed by the [[Congress Socialist Party|Congress Socialist Caucus]]. | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
In the meantime, the [[Andhra Conference]], which was a cultural-literary forum acting as a [[front organisation]] for the [[Hyderabad State Congress]], was overtaken by communists. It recruited students from colleges{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} but was controlled by a [[conservative liberal]] and moderate leadership over whom the Hindu {{Lang|te|durra}} aristocracy had a strong influence and who advocated restraint, opposing activities against the "law and order" of the state.{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=168–174}}{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=164–165}} Following the withdrawal of a ''satyagraha'' movement for constitutional reforms in 1938–39 as a result of instructions of the national leadership,{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} the Congress was largely discredited for its younger left-wing members.{{#tag:ref|The left-wing faction within the AMS was led by Ravi Narayan Reddy, Baddam Yella Reddy and [[Arutla Ramachandra Reddy]].{{sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=164–168}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=128–131}} Convinced that the expulsion of the Nizam along with all the elites was a necessity for effective democratic gains,{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=164–166}} the left-wing faction decided to fight the feudal system, began embracing communism and started building up the organisation in the villages from 1941 onwards. They reduced the enrolment fee by one-fourth, encouraged participation by the landless and impoverished sections of the population. They took up peasants' causes such as the abolition of ''vetti'', prevention of [[rack-renting]] and eviction of tenants, occupancy (''patta'') rights of cultivating tenants and reduction in taxes, revenue demands and rents, among others.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}}{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=168–174}} | In the meantime, the [[Andhra Conference]], which was a cultural-literary forum acting as a [[front organisation]] for the [[Hyderabad State Congress]], was overtaken by communists. It recruited students from colleges{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} but was controlled by a [[conservative liberal]] and moderate leadership over whom the Hindu {{Lang|te|durra}} aristocracy had a strong influence and who advocated restraint, opposing activities against the "law and order" of the state.{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=168–174}}{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=164–165}} Following the withdrawal of a ''satyagraha'' movement for constitutional reforms in 1938–39 as a result of instructions of the national leadership,{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} the Congress was largely discredited for its younger left-wing members.{{#tag:ref|The left-wing faction within the AMS was led by Ravi Narayan Reddy, Baddam Yella Reddy and [[Arutla Ramachandra Reddy]].{{sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=164–168}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=128–131}} Convinced that the expulsion of the Nizam along with all the elites was a necessity for effective democratic gains,{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=164–166}} the left-wing faction decided to fight the feudal system, began embracing communism and started building up the organisation in the villages from 1941 onwards. They reduced the enrolment fee by one-fourth, encouraged participation by the landless and impoverished sections of the population. They took up peasants' causes such as the abolition of ''vetti'', prevention of [[rack-renting]] and eviction of tenants, occupancy (''patta'') rights of cultivating tenants and reduction in taxes, revenue demands and rents, among others.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}}{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=168–174}} | ||
The Andhra Conference, previously seen as a ''durra''{{'}}s organisation, grew in popularity among the peasants and started being referred to as the Andhra Mahasabha (AMS) in Telangana.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} Prominent feminists disillusioned with the Congress who formed the Mahila Navjeevan Mandali in 1941, also joined the AMS and eventually became members of the Communist Party by 1943. Venkateshwara Rao directly recruited disillusioned Congress members and sympathisers into the Communist Party during the same period.{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=164–168}} Initially faced with opposition from the moderate leadership, landlords organisations such as the Agriculturalists Association and through heavy [[political repression]] from the government,{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=168–174}} the AMS was slowly transformed into a militant [[mass organisation]] opposed to the Nizamate with a coalition of peasants, the [[working class]], the [[middle class]] and youths as its members.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} The process was completed in the 1944 [[Bhongir]] session of the AMS when two young communists, [[Ravi Narayan Reddy]] and [[Baddam Yella Reddy]] were elected as the president and secretary.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}}{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=174–177}} The moderates expecting a rout, had resigned from their offices, boycotted the election and later formed a marginal splinter organisation, giving the communists free rein over the primary AMS.{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=147–153}}{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=174–177}} Arthur Lothian, the [[Residencies of British India|Resident at Hyderabad]] took note of the development in October 1943 and began directly intervening in state action with regard to the communists from thereon.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=63}} | The Andhra Conference, previously seen as a ''durra''{{'}}s organisation, grew in popularity among the peasants and started being referred to as the Andhra Mahasabha (AMS) in Telangana.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} Prominent feminists disillusioned with the Congress who formed the Mahila Navjeevan Mandali in 1941, also joined the AMS and eventually became members of the Communist Party by 1943. Venkateshwara Rao directly recruited disillusioned Congress members and sympathisers into the Communist Party during the same period.{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=164–168}} Initially faced with opposition from the moderate leadership, landlords organisations such as the Agriculturalists Association and through heavy [[political repression]] from the government,{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=168–174}} the AMS was slowly transformed into a militant [[mass organisation]] opposed to the Nizamate with a coalition of peasants, the [[working class]], the [[middle class]] and youths as its members.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}} The process was completed in the 1944 [[Bhongir]] session of the AMS when two young communists, [[Ravi Narayan Reddy]] and [[Baddam Yella Reddy]] were elected as the president and secretary.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=189–193}}{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=174–177}} The moderates expecting a rout, had resigned from their offices, boycotted the election and later formed a marginal splinter organisation, giving the communists free rein over the primary AMS.{{sfn|Benichou|2000|pp=147–153}}{{Sfn|Thirumali|1996|pp=174–177}} [[Arthur Lothian]], the [[Residencies of British India|Resident at Hyderabad]] took note of the development in October 1943 and began directly intervening in state action with regard to the communists from thereon.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=63}} | ||
==== Agitations of 1944–46 ==== | ==== Agitations of 1944–46 ==== | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
At the onset of the rebellion, and in light of post–war negotiations between the Congress and the British administration, the Nizam of Hyderabad legalised the Hyderabad State Congress in July 1946. The three front organisations — the non-communist Andhra Conference, the Maharashtra Parishad and the [[Karnatak Parishad]] were merged, and a provincial working committee was formed; 164 delegates from the three organisations voted in an election for the president of the committee. The socialist candidate [[Swami Ramananda Tirtha]] from the Marathawada delegation won against the moderate [[Burgula Ramakrishna Rao]] from the Andhra delegation by a narrow margin of three votes. The moderate–left divide persisted with the moderates, mostly affluent lawyers with {{Lang|te|durra}} backing, refusing to budge and eventually reaching a crisis point over their position with respect to the communists following the Nizam government's military crackdown on the peasants in late 1946.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}} | At the onset of the rebellion, and in light of post–war negotiations between the Congress and the British administration, the Nizam of Hyderabad legalised the Hyderabad State Congress in July 1946. The three front organisations — the non-communist Andhra Conference, the Maharashtra Parishad and the [[Karnatak Parishad]] were merged, and a provincial working committee was formed; 164 delegates from the three organisations voted in an election for the president of the committee. The socialist candidate [[Swami Ramananda Tirtha]] from the Marathawada delegation won against the moderate [[Burgula Ramakrishna Rao]] from the Andhra delegation by a narrow margin of three votes. The moderate–left divide persisted with the moderates, mostly affluent lawyers with {{Lang|te|durra}} backing, refusing to budge and eventually reaching a crisis point over their position with respect to the communists following the Nizam government's military crackdown on the peasants in late 1946.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}} | ||
[[File:Swami Ramanand Tirtha 1999 stamp of India.jpg|thumb|300x300px|1999 postage stamp depicting [[Swami Ramanand Tirtha]], who represented the [[Congress Socialist Party|Congress socialists]] in the [[Hyderabad State Congress]].]] | [[File:Swami Ramanand Tirtha 1999 stamp of India.jpg|thumb|300x300px|1999 postage stamp depicting [[Swami Ramanand Tirtha]], who represented the [[Congress Socialist Party|Congress socialists]] in the [[Hyderabad State Congress]].]] | ||
In November 1946, the two factions sent separate fact finding teams to Suryapet, led by Tirtha and J. Keshav Rao respectively. Tirtha's group searched for police atrocities while Rao's group searched for reasons to condemn the communists. Tirtha praised the actions of the communists. The leftist faction wanted to not only admonish the government for repression but also convert the party into a more militant mass movement. They were prevented from doing so by the moderates, who were adamantly opposed to any further move to the left. The working committee drafted three resolutions demanding the government end their repression in Nalgonda, lift the ban on the Communist Party and cease criticising the communists for a sectarian approach towards the Congress. The moderates were dissatisfied with it, [[filibustered]] it, and did not allow it to pass.{{#tag:ref|K.R. Vaidya, a moderate veteran was insulted that the younger committee had not accepted his recommendations and distributed a letter condemning [[Govindbhai Shroff|Govind Das Shroff]] and the Marathawada leftists for being overtly sympathetic to the communists.{{sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}}|group=note}} The State Congress stopped functioning because of the consequent resignation from the left and mediation with the national leadership | In November 1946, the two factions sent separate fact finding teams to Suryapet, led by Tirtha and J. Keshav Rao respectively. Tirtha's group searched for police atrocities while Rao's group searched for reasons to condemn the communists. Tirtha praised the actions of the communists. The leftist faction wanted to not only admonish the government for repression but also convert the party into a more militant mass movement. They were prevented from doing so by the moderates, who were adamantly opposed to any further move to the left. The working committee drafted three resolutions demanding the government end their repression in Nalgonda, lift the ban on the Communist Party and cease criticising the communists for a sectarian approach towards the Congress. The moderates were dissatisfied with it, [[filibustered]] it, and did not allow it to pass.{{#tag:ref|K.R. Vaidya, a moderate veteran was insulted that the younger committee had not accepted his recommendations and distributed a letter condemning [[Govindbhai Shroff|Govind Das Shroff]] and the Marathawada leftists for being overtly sympathetic to the communists.{{sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}}|group=note}} The State Congress stopped functioning because of the consequent resignation from the left and mediation with the national leadership until March 1947. The left issued a statement denouncing the "barren constitutionalism" of "feudal elements" in the State Congress.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}} | ||
[[Wilfrid Vernon Grigson]], Revenue and Police Minister for the [[Viceroy's Executive Council]], conducted his own investigation in December and reported that the peasants had legitimate grievances and that it was not communist propaganda as previously assumed. The report stated that raiding villages and arresting communists would not succeed in stopping attacks on government officials without an administrative overhaul in the princely state, which according to him the Nizam's officials were incapable of conducting.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=66–68}} The AISPC passed a resolution on 27 December condemning the activities of both the government and the communists, based on a report from their president, [[Dwarkanath Kachru]], who had arrived in Hyderabad to conduct his own investigation. In a private letter, Kachru wrote to Tirtha that despite their official stance, the grievances of the peasants were genuine such that "no organisation worthy of its name could put up with" and admitted the communists had simply outflanked them through their mass mobilisation. The activities of the Congress in the state were being marginalised as the conflict between the Nizam's government and the communists engulfed Telangana.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}} | [[Wilfrid Vernon Grigson]], Revenue and Police Minister for the [[Viceroy's Executive Council]], conducted his own investigation in December and reported that the peasants had legitimate grievances and that it was not communist propaganda as previously assumed. The report stated that raiding villages and arresting communists would not succeed in stopping attacks on government officials without an administrative overhaul in the princely state, which according to him the Nizam's officials were incapable of conducting.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=66–68}} The AISPC passed a resolution on 27 December condemning the activities of both the government and the communists, based on a report from their president, [[Dwarkanath Kachru]], who had arrived in Hyderabad to conduct his own investigation. In a private letter, Kachru wrote to Tirtha that despite their official stance, the grievances of the peasants were genuine such that "no organisation worthy of its name could put up with" and admitted the communists had simply outflanked them through their mass mobilisation. The activities of the Congress in the state were being marginalised as the conflict between the Nizam's government and the communists engulfed Telangana.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=68–73}} | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
=== Escalation and territorial expansion === | === Escalation and territorial expansion === | ||
The crisis of authority in Hyderabad had enabled the influence of the rebels in the countryside to expand rapidly. They set up a parallel administration composed of {{Lang|te|gram rajyams}} ( | The crisis of authority in Hyderabad had enabled the influence of the rebels in the countryside to expand rapidly. They set up a parallel administration composed of {{Lang|te|gram rajyams}} (village communes) in the areas that came under their control.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=197–198}} This parallel administration provided more stability and became a refuge from the violence in the rest of the state.{{Sfn|Elliott|1974|pp=43–45}} Roving bands of ''razakars'' active across Hyderabad to quell agitations were instructed by the government to protect the {{Lang|te|durras}} and suppress the communists in Telangana after the withdrawal of the British. Initially attached to police and military forces, the ''razakars'' had come to supersede them when the Ittehad assumed power and started operating independently of the state forces. They plundered and looted villages, killed and arrested people on suspicion of being potential agitators and employed rape and torture to quell villages into submission.{{Sfn|Elliott|1974|pp=43–45}}{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=196–197}} The communists, who had previously relied largely on defensive measures and unarmed resistance, began to openly endorse [[offensive warfare]]. The national leadership of the Communist Party officially approved armed rebellion in September 1947.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=75–76}} | ||
Volunteer squads called ''dalams'' were organised by the communes. They were joined en masse by villagers frustrated with police, military and ''razakar'' atrocities, particularly in the districts of Nalgonda, Warangal and Kammam which were communist strongholds.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=197–198}} The Communist Party was better organised in the neighbouring Andhra region of [[Madras State]] (previously Madras Presidency) and was sending arms, supplies and volunteers into Telangana. This considerably bolstered the organisational, tactical and logistical capabilities of the rebels, transforming the peasants uprising into an organised rebellion.{{Sfn|Elliott|1974|pp=43–45}} Arms were acquired through [[black market]] purchases at increased prices in Telangana and from the estate agents and local government officials by theft and force.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=15}} The rebels who were equipped with firearms went on [[guerilla warfare]] targeting infrastructure, supplies and garrisons of the government and the estates of the {{Lang|te|durras}}.{{Sfn|Elliott|1974|pp=43–45}} Organised mobs were assigned to lower risk targets such as the forest department and offices of village officials, and would burn down their records, take away their ''lathis'' and grain stocks. In December, the armed assaults became excessively frequent, the police recorded 45 attacks on major targets within the span of 11 days in Warangal and Nalgonda districts.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=75–76}} | Volunteer squads called ''dalams'' were organised by the communes. They were joined en masse by villagers frustrated with police, military and ''razakar'' atrocities, particularly in the districts of Nalgonda, Warangal and Kammam which were communist strongholds.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=197–198}} The Communist Party was better organised in the neighbouring Andhra region of [[Madras State]] (previously Madras Presidency) and was sending arms, supplies and volunteers into Telangana. This considerably bolstered the organisational, tactical and logistical capabilities of the rebels, transforming the peasants uprising into an organised rebellion.{{Sfn|Elliott|1974|pp=43–45}} Arms were acquired through [[black market]] purchases at increased prices in Telangana and from the estate agents and local government officials by theft and force.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=15}} The rebels who were equipped with firearms went on [[guerilla warfare]] targeting infrastructure, supplies and garrisons of the government and the estates of the {{Lang|te|durras}}.{{Sfn|Elliott|1974|pp=43–45}} Organised mobs were assigned to lower risk targets such as the forest department and offices of village officials, and would burn down their records, take away their ''lathis'' and grain stocks. In December, the armed assaults became excessively frequent, the police recorded 45 attacks on major targets within the span of 11 days in Warangal and Nalgonda districts.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=75–76}} | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
In September 1948, the Dominion of India launched a military intervention for the [[annexation of Hyderabad]].{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=79–80}}{{Sfn|Guha|1976|p=41}} The intervention officially described as a "police action" was justified on the grounds of ending the undemocratic feudal regime of the Nizam and the ''razakar'' repression enabled by him.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=199–200}} Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] had stated in a press conference the government's policy towards the communists would depend on how they respond during and after the intervention.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=80}} The comment was misleading as the government was making preparations to liquidate the peasant communes and restore the {{Lang|te|durra}} aristocrats regardless of their response. Internally, the communists were described as the primary target rather than the Nizam and the ''razakars''.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=80}}{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|p=200}}{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=18}}{{Sfn|Guha|1976|p=41}} [[V. P. Menon]] had briefed the American embassy about the intervention and promised them that the communists would be eradicated in return for their support in justifying the military action to the [[international community]]. The Home Ministry under Vallabhbhai Patel favoured military intervention as it would enable them to deploy military personnel in Telangana. They had initially stalled the intervention for over a year, despite ongoing ''razakar'' atrocities because it was feared that an invasion would allow the communists to strengthen their position. Menon wanted the rebel administration to be dealt with through [[military courts]] rather than by civil authorities.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=79–80}} | In September 1948, the Dominion of India launched a military intervention for the [[annexation of Hyderabad]].{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=79–80}}{{Sfn|Guha|1976|p=41}} The intervention officially described as a "police action" was justified on the grounds of ending the undemocratic feudal regime of the Nizam and the ''razakar'' repression enabled by him.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=199–200}} Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] had stated in a press conference the government's policy towards the communists would depend on how they respond during and after the intervention.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=80}} The comment was misleading as the government was making preparations to liquidate the peasant communes and restore the {{Lang|te|durra}} aristocrats regardless of their response. Internally, the communists were described as the primary target rather than the Nizam and the ''razakars''.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=80}}{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|p=200}}{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=18}}{{Sfn|Guha|1976|p=41}} [[V. P. Menon]] had briefed the American embassy about the intervention and promised them that the communists would be eradicated in return for their support in justifying the military action to the [[international community]]. The Home Ministry under Vallabhbhai Patel favoured military intervention as it would enable them to deploy military personnel in Telangana. They had initially stalled the intervention for over a year, despite ongoing ''razakar'' atrocities because it was feared that an invasion would allow the communists to strengthen their position. Menon wanted the rebel administration to be dealt with through [[military courts]] rather than by civil authorities.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=79–80}} | ||
The Indian Army marched into Hyderabad State on 13 September and the already demoralised Hyderabad State Force, the police and the ''razakars'' surrendered within a week after minimal resistance.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|p=199}} This military intervention was perceived by the peasant communes as a positive development and not as an attack on them. The villagers believed the army was helping them defeat the Nizam's government. They launched a final parallel assault against the remaining military camps of the state forces, outposts of state agents and garrisons in {{Lang|te|durra}} estates, accompanied by victory celebrations.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=80}} The rebels came across large stores of arms and ammunition during the assault. Many of them were handed over to the army after their objectives were accomplished, as the peasants returned to their villages with the belief that the armed conflict was over.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=19}} The commanding officer selected for the invasion was Major General [[Jayanto Nath Chaudhuri]], who was also a ''[[Zamindars of Bengal|zamindar]]'' aristocrat from West Bengal.{{Sfn|Barua|2003|pp=51–52}} He set up a military administration after the Nizam's capitulation, banned the Communist Party, and immediately launched a military offensive against the peasant communes.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|p=200}}{{Sfn|Gerlach|Six|2020|p=131}} The ''deshmukhs'' and officials returned as the redistributed lands were to be confiscated and granted back to their original owners.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=19}} | The Indian Army marched into Hyderabad State on 13 September and the already demoralised Hyderabad State Force, the police and the ''razakars'' surrendered within a week after minimal resistance.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|p=199}} This military intervention was perceived by the peasant communes as a positive development and not as an attack on them. The villagers believed the army was helping them defeat the Nizam's government. They launched a final parallel assault against the remaining military camps of the state forces, outposts of state agents and garrisons in {{Lang|te|durra}} estates, accompanied by victory celebrations.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=80}} The rebels came across large stores of arms and ammunition during the assault. Many of them were handed over to the army after their objectives were accomplished, as the peasants returned to their villages with the belief that the armed conflict was over.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=19}} The commanding officer selected for the invasion was Major General [[Jayanto Nath Chaudhuri]], who was also a ''[[Zamindars of Bengal|zamindar]]'' aristocrat from West Bengal.{{Sfn|Barua|2003|pp=51–52}} He set up a military administration after the Nizam's capitulation, banned the Communist Party, and immediately launched a military offensive against the peasant communes.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|p=200}}{{Sfn|Gerlach|Six|2020|p=131}} The ''deshmukhs'' and officials returned as the redistributed lands were to be confiscated and granted back to their original owners.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=19}} | ||
The military administration did not induct any local police personnel or civil servants, including those affiliated with the Hyderabad State Congress, who were sidelined. Vallabhbhai Patel distrusted them and justified it with the claim that they had a partisan character.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=82–83}} They deployed officials and personnel from outside the state, as it was feared that locals might be apprehensive of conducting violence against their own and might even be covert communist sympathisers. Chaudhuri also issued a warning to the police personnel from outside the state about falling under communist influence.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=19}} The administration orchestrated an anti–communist [[witch hunt]] in the state, attempting to arrest any and all communists. There was widespread use of torture against those suspected of harbouring information and the military personnel occasionally conducted indiscriminate arrests and mass shootings against villagers in Telangana.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|pp=19–20}}{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=81}} Meanwhile, the Nizam was not prosecuted and instead was made the [[Rajpramukh]] of Hyderabad State for a period of time.{{Sfn|Gerlach|Six|2020|p=132}} Kasim Razvi was arrested, tried and jailed but soon released and forced to migrate to Pakistan.{{Sfn|Gray|2015|p=403}} The military administration actively promoted feudal restoration in Telangana.{{Sfn|Guha|1976|pp=41–42}} | The military administration did not induct any local police personnel or civil servants, including those affiliated with the Hyderabad State Congress, who were sidelined. Vallabhbhai Patel distrusted them and justified it with the claim that they had a partisan character.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=82–83}} They deployed officials and personnel from outside the state, as it was feared that locals might be apprehensive of conducting violence against their own and might even be covert communist sympathisers. Chaudhuri also issued a warning to the police personnel from outside the state about falling under communist influence.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=19}} The administration orchestrated an anti–communist [[witch hunt]] in the state, attempting to arrest any and all communists. There was widespread use of torture against those suspected of harbouring information and the military personnel occasionally conducted indiscriminate arrests and mass shootings against villagers in Telangana.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|pp=19–20}}{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|p=81}} Meanwhile, the Nizam was not prosecuted and instead was made the [[Rajpramukh]] of Hyderabad State for a period of time.{{Sfn|Gerlach|Six|2020|p=132}} Kasim Razvi was arrested, tried and jailed but soon released and forced to migrate to Pakistan.{{Sfn|Gray|2015|p=403}} The military administration actively promoted feudal restoration in Telangana.{{Sfn|Guha|1976|pp=41–42}} | ||
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
=== Structure and organisation === | === Structure and organisation === | ||
{{Socialism sidebar}} | {{Socialism sidebar}} | ||
The communist peasant rebellion set up a system of governance called {{Lang|te|gram rajyams}} or village | The communist peasant rebellion set up a system of governance called {{Lang|te|gram rajyams}} or village communes which managed all administrative and judicial functions.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=198–199}}{{Sfn|Gupta|1984b|p=22}} They consisted of ''{{Lang|te|samiti}}s'' (committees) elected in village meetings with [[universal adult franchise]].{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=14}}{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1974|pp=123–124}} The number of members in each {{Lang|te|samiti}} ranged from five to seven and varied between villages.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=15}} The ''{{Lang|te|samiti}}s'' supervised the redistribution of land and organised systems for dispute resolution, and to address complaints, conflicts and abuses including family and personal issues.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1974|pp=123–124}} The former role of the ''deshmukhs'' was replaced by these systems.{{Sfn|Gupta|1984a|p=14}} The communes in the later stage established judicial courts with a [[jury system]].{{Sfn|Guha|1976|p=41}} The individual communes lacked coordination with each other and suffered from isolation through the entire duration of the rebellion.{{Sfn|Dhanagare|1983|pp=205–206}} | ||
The Andhra Mahasabha and Communist Party of India were undifferentiated by the villagers and collectively were simply known as {{Lang|te|Sangham}} (The Organisation), from their reference to the initial village level organisations called {{Lang|te|sangham}}''s''.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=76–77}} The porosity in membership of the {{Lang|te|Sangham}} was very high, anyone who supported and participated was ''de facto'' considered a member of the party which in turn made entire villages an extension of the party itself. Any villager could be elected to positions within it.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=77–78}} | The Andhra Mahasabha and Communist Party of India were undifferentiated by the villagers and collectively were simply known as {{Lang|te|Sangham}} (The Organisation), from their reference to the initial village level organisations called {{Lang|te|sangham}}''s''.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=76–77}} The porosity in membership of the {{Lang|te|Sangham}} was very high, anyone who supported and participated was ''de facto'' considered a member of the party which in turn made entire villages an extension of the party itself. Any villager could be elected to positions within it.{{Sfn|Roosa|2001|pp=77–78}} | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
* [[Nankar Rebellion]] | * [[Nankar Rebellion]] | ||
* [[Rojava conflict]] | * [[Rojava conflict]] | ||
* [[List of communist parties in India]] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 216: | Line 217: | ||
*{{Cite journal|last=Thirumali|first=I.|date=1996|title=The Political Pragmatism of the Communists in Telangana, 1938-48|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517795|journal=Social Scientist|volume=24|issue=4/6|pages=164–183|doi=10.2307/3517795|issn=0970-0293|via=[[JSTOR]]|author-link=I Thirumali}} | *{{Cite journal|last=Thirumali|first=I.|date=1996|title=The Political Pragmatism of the Communists in Telangana, 1938-48|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517795|journal=Social Scientist|volume=24|issue=4/6|pages=164–183|doi=10.2307/3517795|issn=0970-0293|via=[[JSTOR]]|author-link=I Thirumali}} | ||
{{refend}} | {{refend}} | ||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
*{{Cite book|last=Bandyopadhyay|first=Sekhar|title=From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India|publisher=[[Orient Blackswan]]|year=2004|isbn=978-81-250-2596-2|language=en}} | *{{Cite book|last=Bandyopadhyay|first=Sekhar|title=From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India|publisher=[[Orient Blackswan]]|year=2004|isbn=978-81-250-2596-2|language=en}} | ||
| Line 231: | Line 233: | ||
[[Category:Telangana Rebellion]] | [[Category:Telangana Rebellion]] | ||
[[Category:20th-century rebellions]] | |||
[[Category:Hyderabad State]] | [[Category:Hyderabad State]] | ||
[[Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence]] | [[Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence]] | ||