1948 హైదరాబాద్ పతనం — పేరుకు సరిపడని పుస్తకం

12 Comments

1. 

   sreenivas indraganti

   July 28, 2015 at 12:13 pm

   Reply

   డియర్ సర్
   నేను ఒక సారి నెట్ లో అండర్ ది చార్మినార్ అనే పుస్తకం లోని కొన్ని పేజి లను చదవడం జరిగింది ..ఆపుస్తకం లో పోలీసు ఆక్షన్ తర్వాత ముస్లింల మీద జరిగిన దాడుల గురించి రాసేరూ ,,బహుగుణ కమిషన్ నివేదిక ను అప్పటి ప్రభుత్వం తొక్కిపెట్టిందని చదివినట్టు గుర్తు,,,,,నేను హైదరాబాద్ పతనం చదివి ఒక మేరకు నిరాశకు గురయ్యా సగం పైన కోర్ట్ తాలుక విషయాలు,,,,ఇనొక్కరి మీదే కేసు ఎందుకు పెట్టారో ఎక్కడా చెప్పలేదు,,,,,,,కాని అప్పటి కాలం లో ముస్లిం వర్గాలో ఉన్న ఆలోచన విదానం గురించి బాగెఅనె రాసేరనిపించింది,,,హైదరాబాద్ ఒక స్వతంత్ర దేశం,,దాని మీద జరిగిన పోలీస్ ఆక్షన్ దురాక్రమనా అన్నది ఒక ప్రశ్నే ….ఏమైనా మీ ద్వారా నాకు గీత గారి లిస్టు అఫ్ బుక్స్ దొరికాయి ధన్యవాదాలు …… శ్రీనివాస్ ఇంద్రగంటి ,,హైదరాబాద్

2. 

   sangishetty srinivas

   May 16, 2013 at 8:21 pm

   Reply

   ఈ పుస్తకానికి ఆంగ్లంలో పెట్టిన పేరు October Coup: A Memoir of the Struggle for Hyderabad. ఈ పేరు కూడా సరిపడే పేరు కాదు. సాధారణంగా coup అన్న మాటను ఒక దేశంలో కీలకస్థానాల్లో ఉన్న కొందరు లోపలి వాళ్ళు (సైన్యాధికారులు, ఇతరులు) దేశాధినేతను లోపాయికారీగా కూలదోసి రాజ్యాధికారాన్ని చేజిక్కించుకున్నారు అన్న ఉద్దేశంలో ఉపయోగిస్తారు. ఆ అర్థం భారతదేశంలో హైదరాబాద్ సంస్థానం విలీనమైన ప్రక్రియకు, ఏ దృష్టితో చూసినా, పొసగదు. ఇంతకు ముందే చెప్పినట్లు ఇవి Memoirs of Mohammad Hyder కాని, A Memoir of the Struggle for Hyderabad కాదు.

   Yes. This is exactly a coup, because the minister in the Nizam’s Government Aravamudam aiyyangar was acted as spy for the Indian government, and made all arrangement for the their military’s invasion, in collusion with K.M. Munshi the then special envoy of India to Hyderabad. These information will be available vividly in K.M. Munshi’s autobiography.” The end of an era”.

   1. 

      Jampala Chowdary

      May 18, 2013 at 9:54 am

      శ్రీనివాస్ గారూ:

      మీరు చెప్పిన ఉదంతం కూడా coup అనటానికి సరిపోదు. 1948లో హైదరాబాద్ లో అధికారానికి వచ్చింది ఆంతరంగిక శక్తులు కాదు. బయటనుంచి వచ్చి, తన సైన్యంతో గెలిచిన సార్వభౌమ ప్రభుత్వం.

3. 

   Suenetha

   May 16, 2013 at 5:12 pm

   Reply

   Quite an interesting debate on the title of the book and its supposed mismatch with the contents. As someone who was quite happy to see this book in Telugu, I want to share my own views on the book, its contents and its importance.

   a) About the title – October Coup refers to the events of October 1947 when the Majlis party under Qasim Razvi began to decide (in Hyder’s view) the politics and foreign policy of the Nizam state. When the Nizam government’s team was about to leave with the re-worked draft of the Standstill agreement, the Majlis party workers burn down their office. For Hyder, this was the moment when the downfall of the Hyderabad State began. This view is also widely shared among other choroniclers and historians of this period – eg. Munshi, Ali Awar Jung and Benichou. This moment is supposed to have triggered Osman Ali Khan’s capitulation to Razvi and his gang of supporters who argued that Hyderabad could stay independent, without merging either with Pakistan and India. So much for the title.

   b) Osmanabad events as a symbol of the battle for Hyderabad state – Osmanabad, though it is only one of the districts of the Hyderabad state, was an extremely important battleground for the nationalists, Hyderabad state forces and the razakars. If we keep the five districts of Telangana where the Telangana Armed struggle was going on as a separate story, the happenings in five districts of Bidar, Osmanabad, Bhid, Bidar and Gulbarga tell us a very different story of the Hyderabad state. In that sense, the title is apt – it is symbolic – of what was happening in the rest of the Hyderabad state. The nationalists (Arya Samaj, Congress, Hindu Mahasabha) fought the Hyderabad state (army + the razakars and the irregulars) in all these five districts, which had shared borders with the newly independent India.

   Chowdhary garu’s points about more details are valid – why did only Hyder get dismissed and why not other officers that he goes to after his dismissal. Hyder’s father-in-law was the highest ranking police officer in the Hyderabad state, thought of as close to Qasim Razvi.

   c) However, that the plight of Hyder and his long legal battle is not merely personal. For a historian and political scientist this account is very crucial. For instance, it told me that the formative period of the Indian state was quite ruthless in its march (quite in contrast to the nationalist promise) imprisoning erstwhile close associates of the Hyderabad state, arya samajis and the communists alike (Hyder mentions all these as a part of his jail account) Two, his question about the locus of the Indian state in prosecuting him is also crucial – on what ground did the Indian government take this action. Similar accounts of the in-between-ness of the Indian and Pakistani government’s actions have been raised by feminists inquiring into the fate of the abducted women on both sides during Partition. Three, the issue of victors writing the history is extremely crucial, which I want to elaborate now.

   d) The hitherto available history of Hyderabad state – especially between 1948 and 1953 has largely been written from three different perspectives – congress-nationalism (the four volume history of the Hyderabad state commissioned by the AP government, edited by N.Rameshan) that discusses the merger as the inevitable outcome of the long battle against the Hyderabad state. Major themes here are lack of civil liberties, representative government and finally razakar atrocities; two, the arya samajis – who have long imagined Hyderabad state as a ‘Islamic state’ and fought battles on social (conversion; shuddhi) and political (combined satyagrahas with the Congress) and military (armed incursions between 1947-48 through the border camps). Major themes here are Muslim regime’s atrocities on Hindus, oppression of Hindus and lack of civil liberties for Hindus, and covnersion of lower castes into Islam. They continued to write and publish histories of this period (V.H.Desai, for example) and propagated them through other means (such as recent novel called Razakar by Neelakanth) Three, then you have communist historiography which only focuses on anti-feudal (therefore anti-Nizam) land struggles in the rural Telangana, especially five districts. The major themes here are feudal oppression and vetti. Even though Communist Party did negotiate with the Majlis for arms after 1948, there is very little discussion of how urban Muslism thought of the Hyderabad state or whether they identified with the state in what way etc. Then, in the last decade and a half we have had scholarly histories – Benichou, Pernau, Kavita Datla which are slightly distant from all these persepctives and interrogate the period in a framework that takes into account the complex predicament of the Hyderabad state. (Muslims chroniclers have not been uniform either in defence of the regime or in opposition. As Gita mentioned, there are official chronicles by Laik Ali who supported it, apart from that of Ali Awar Jung, who wanted the regime to fall).

   However, for sixty years, the former three kinds of history has determined the ways in which the Telugus have thought about Hyderabad state – autocratic Nizam, feudalism and vetti, liberating Communist party and consequent merger after the popular movement. Strangely, this history stops in 1948 September. Though Hyderabad is full of Muslims who have lost family members, property and jobs, these have not entered the history books – either popular or scholarly. My colleague Moid, a Hyderabadi Muslim found that there is a huge silence about this genocide – called Police Action violence, among contemporary Hyderabadi Muslims. No one wants to talk about it, since it involves remembering. Hyder’s reserved mention is not uncharacteristic in that sense.

   As Bhutalia and Menon have shown it in the context of the Partition debate, or as authors of We Were Making History showed it in the context of the Telangana Armed struggle, experiences (in both these cases, of women) – recounting, remembering and memorializing occurs in the context of the contemporary debate. For Muslims in Hyderabad, such a context is currently absent. No body wants them to remember what happened to them. In fact, everyone tells them that they deserved it – qua doings of razakars.

   In fact, a different perspective on Hyderabad state than that of the nationalist, communist (which is also nationalist in essence) or Hindu is impossible to articulate even now. That is why, even though Ramananda Teertha, and others wrote about border camps, we assumed that they were part of the nationalist struggle against the Nizam – for India’s freedom. As most of us identified with Ramananda Teertha, we never raised the question that Hyder asked – how was a state to defend itself against such incursions from the border, except through counter violence? Hyder identifies with the Hyderabad state and for him, all the activities that he was involved with were – in defense of the Hyderabad state.

   And, for me, as a student of political history of Andhra, that shifting of perspective on the familiar events is most necessary and timely. And the book, a welcome breath of fresh air into the historiography of this period that has become stale.

   1. 

      Jampala Chowdary

      May 18, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Suneetha gaaru:

      Thank you for your detailed note.

      I was interested in Hyder’s book for the same reasons you mentioned, particularly in paragraphs b and d. However, I felt shortchanged. More on that later. I understand that this site is not an appropriate place to discuss the events of 1947 and 1948. I would try to limit my comments to the book alone.

      What you say about October coup makes sense. Though I have not heard that particular term earlier, I can see how those October events could have been interpreted that way. However, what does not make sense is that once again, it was not the focus of Hyder’s account to be the title of his book. The events of October take about a page in Hyder’s narrative. It also does not appear that he believed that the events of October represented a power grab, as he describes the November agreement was a clear indication that the State of Hyderabad was not under the control of the local (Muslim) extremists. If that was Hyder’s interpretation of the events, then for his book to be titled October Coup does not appear to be appropriate. At the end of the first chapter, it appears that he is rejecting the popular notion that the Muslim extremism under the guidance of civil servants was responsible for the fall of Hyderabad (I do not have the benefit of the English original). In that case, the events of October do not represent the power grab that was responsible for the Fall of Hyderabad.

      From my readings in the last few weeks, it was clear that Osmanabad had a crucial place in the events of that time. But, Hyder’s narrative does not lay out the geopolitical climate of the time well. While, I would like to give Hyder the benefit of doubt, it clearly appears that he acquired a notoriety for his actions in Osmanabad. He himself refers to overhearing someone say about him, “దేవుడా! ఉస్మానాబాద్ కు చెందిన మొహమ్మద్ హైదరా? హిందువుల పిల్లలను టిఫిన్ గా తినేవాడు, అతనేనా?” Where did that come from? It does not appear that his father-in-law was prosecuted. Why was Hyder singled out? Does his account of his actions in Osmanabad represent truth, or merely a self serving account?

      My problem with the book is not limited to its title. First, Hyder has not set out to write a book of history or to document the events of the time. (Frankly, I do not think he knows how to approach a historical book. He assumes that the reader also knows a lot about what he is writing about. Without adequate prior knowledge of the events, it is difficult to get a perspective from his book alone.). His writing (at least what I read in the translation) was poor and, on occasion, ambiguous. Second, the book is horribly unbalanced between his narrative of personal legal troubles vs the events leading to the Fall of Hyderabad. I think you have overstated the case of the usefulness of Hyder’s narration of his legal troubles (I also did not understand the case you were making about the similarity between Hyder’s troubles and the issues raised by the feminists inquiring into the abductions). I doubt that you needed the 150 pages of his legal papers in the book for the insights you gained from this book. Third, this book badly needed an editor. If the intent of the publishers is to throw a light on certain issues or events, that would have been accomplished much better by either giving contextual explanations via footnotes or otherwise or commissioning a detailed foreword by persons with knowledge and understanding of the events (even something like your note would have gone a long way in helping place the book in context). In stead, the publishers apparently felt that they can accomplish their aims by a title and a portion of somebody’s note on the back cover that may have been relevant to the events of the time, but not to the contents of this particular book.

      I am looking for better books that can give me an account of the times and events.

      Also, all of a sudden, I have an interest in books describing Nizam rule in Kannada speaking areas.

      Once again, thank you.

4. 

   Srinivas Vuruputuri

   May 13, 2013 at 11:59 am

   Reply

   Genocide లాంటి మాటలను తరచుగా అనాలోచితంగా వాడతామేమో అని అనిపిస్తుంది నాకు. But that’s just me. I could be wrong.

   అదలా ఉంచితే – వ్యాసంలో చర్చించబడ్డ విషయానికి సంబంధించి నాకు కనబడ్డ రెండు లింకులు: A.G.Noorani వ్యాసం, సుందర్‌లాల్ నివేదికలోంచి కొంత

   రజాకారుల గురించి విన్నాను కానీ ఈ ప్రతీకార దాడుల గురించి వినడం ఇదే మొదటిసారి నాకు.

   1. 

      Jampala Chowdary

      May 15, 2013 at 10:54 am

      శ్రీనివాస్ గారూ
      మీరు ఇచ్చిన లంకెలు చాలా ఉపయుక్తంగా ఉన్నాయి.
      ధన్యవాదాలు.

   2. 

      gita ramaswamy

      May 16, 2013 at 10:23 am

      Various references:
      Ali, Mir Laik. Tragedy of Hyderbad. Karachi: Din Muhammadi Press, 1962. Print.
      Austin, Ian. City of Legends: The Story of Hyderabad. New Delhi: Viking, 1992. Print.
      Bakshian Jr., Aram, and Geoffrey D. Schad. “Hyderabad: Shadow of Empire.” History
      Today 39.1 (1989): 19-28. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 May 2007.
      .
      Bawa, V. K. The Last Nizam. New York: Viking, 1992. Print.
      Benichou, Lucien. From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad
      State (1938-1948). Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2000. Print.
      Bose, Sumantra. Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge: Harvard, 2003.
      Print.
      Collins, Larry, and Dominique Lapierre. Mountbatten and Independent India. New Delhi:
      Viking, 1984. Print.
      Copland, Ian. “The Princely States, the Muslim League and the Partition of India in
      1947.” The International History Review 13.1 (1991): 38-69. JSTOR. Web. 7
      Mar. 2010. .
      Dalrymple, William. White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in Eighteenth Century India.
      New York: Penguin, 2002. Print.
      Das, Taraknath. “The Kashmir Issue and the United Nations.” Political Science Quarterly
      65.2 (1950): 264-282. JSTOR. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. .
      83
      – – -. “The Status of Hyderabad during and after Partiton.” American Journal of
      International Law 43.1 (1949): 57-72. Web. 5 May 2007.
      .
      Eagleton, Clyde. “The Case of Hyderabad before the Security Council.” American
      Journal of International Law 44.2 (1950): 277-302. Web. 6 May 2007.
      .
      El Edroos, Syed Ahmed. Hyderabad of “The Seven Loaves.” Hyderabad: M/s. Laser
      Prints Ltd., 1994. Print.
      Elliott, Carolyn M. “Decline of Patrimonial Regime.” The Journal of Asian Studies 34.1
      (1974): 27-47. JSTOR. Web. 4 Mar. 2010. .
      Gauba, K. L. Hyderabad or India. Delhi: Raj Kamal Publications Limited, 1948. Print.
      Government of Hyderabad. Hyderabad’s Relations with the Dominion of India.
      Hyderabad: Government Press, 1948. Print.
      – – -. Hyderabad’s Relations with the Dominion of India. Vol. II. Hyderabad: Government
      Press, 1948. Print.
      Government of India. White Paper on Hyderabad. New Delhi: Government of India
      Press, 1948. Print.
      84
      Kaul, Santosh. Indian Freedom Movement and States. New Delhi: Anmol Publications,
      1998. Google Books. Web. 7 Apr. 2010. .
      Khalidi, Omar, ed. Hyderabad: After the Fall. Wichita: n.p., 1988. Print.
      Khan, Muneer Ahmed. “Muslim Politics in Hyderabad.” Diss. Osmania University, 1980.
      Print.
      Kooiman, Dick. Communalism and Indian Princely States: Travancore, Baroda and
      Hyderabad in the 1930s. New Delhi: Manohar, 2002. Print.
      Krishna, Gopal. “The Khilafat Movement in India: The First Phase (September 1919-
      August 1920).” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
      1.2 (1968): 37-53. JSTOR. Web. 10 Sept. 2009. .
      McAuliffe, R. Paton. The Nizam: The Origin and Future of the Hyderabad State.
      London: Cambridge University Press, 1904. Google Books. Web. 13 Feb. 2010.
      .
      85
      Morris-Jones, W. H. “Thirty-Six Years Later: The Mixed Legacies of Mountbatten’s
      Transfer of Power.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs)
      59.4 (1983): 621-628. Web. 7 May 2007.
      .
      Pernau, Margrit. The Passing of Patrimonialism: Political Culture in Hyderabad 1911-
      1948. Delhi: Manohar, 2000. Print.
      Pernau-Reifeld, Margrit. “Reaping the Whirlwind: Nizam and the Khilafat Movement.”
      Economic and Political Weekly 18 Sept. 1999: 2745-2751. JSTOR. Web. 6 Feb.
      2010. .
      Ramusack, Barbara N. “The Indian Princes and Their States.” The New Cambridge
      History of India. Vol. 6. Cambridge: Cambridge, 2004. N. pag. Print. 3.
      Rizvi, Wajid. Mujahid-e Azam. Karachi: Kaleem Press, 1952. Print.
      Roosa, John. “Passive Revolution Meets Peasant Revolution: Indian Nationalism and the
      Telengana Revolt.” Journal of Peasant Studies 28.4 (2001): 57-94. Informaworld.
      Web. 7 Feb. 2010. .
      Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. “Hyderabad: Muslim Tragedy.” The Middle East Journal 4.1
      (1950): 27-51. JSTOR. Web. 6 Apr. 2010. .
      Talbot, Phillips. “Kashmir and Hyderabad.” World Politics 1.3 (1949): 321-332. JSTOR.
      Web. 5 Apr. 2010. .
      Thirumali, I. “The Political Pragmatism of the Communists in Telengana: 1938-1948.”
      Social Scientist 24.4 (1996): 164-183. JSTOR. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.
      .
      86

5. 

   Guest

   May 12, 2013 at 3:38 pm

   Reply

   Message from Gita Ramaswamy of Hyderabad Book Trust:

   Normally, I do not intervene in a public debate over HBT books.

   Mohammed Hyder’s 1948: Hyderabad patanam, is different, and both the title and blurb on the back cover were carefully planned. Hence this intervention/ explanation.
   At the outset, may I remind you that what happened in 1948 in the State of Hyderabad has never been discussed, either in Telugu or in English. The two English accounts are by Qutbuddin Azis and Mir Laik Ali, both avowedly pro-Razakar, and who left for Pakistan immediately after 1948. The first one was banned by the Govt of India, and the second is not available. In that sense, Hyder’s 1948: Hyderabad patanam is the first of its kind, and certainly in Telugu. From what I understand of Mr Choudhary’s review, the title and blurb led him to expect a full-fledged historian’s account of 1948. Hyder was not a historian, he was a player in 1948, and his is a player’s, albeit, dispassionate account. He presented, not an overview, but a bird’s eye view, of the events of 1948. To that extent, the title is not misleading, though a subtitle, `Memoirs of the Collector of Osmanabad,’ would have been good. The cover design did not allow this. We come to certainly know, from his account, that if a man who was the Collector of a district, whose father-in-law was the IGP of police, could be treated in the manner he was, the ordinary Muslim would have fared very badly. To expect that the first book from a member of a community that has been so badly treated, its history decimated, the record of its genocide virtually erased – will lay out a full seven course meal is not possible. When Dalit protest literature first began emerging in Andhra Pradesh, it had its rough edges and was greatly misunderstood. I recall the upper caste criticisms – where is the craft, why are abusive words being used, what is literature about it, etc – not surprisingly, these criticisms are rarely voiced now. We should also read into the silences of the marginalised – if Hyder had devoted just two paragraphs to what happened in 1948 elsewhere, he also writes that it is too difficult for him to write about it. ‘I cannot bring myself to write about them even now,’ he says. Shouldn’t the reader reflect on why it was difficult? Silences, often speak, and we need to cultivate the ear to hear them.
   We should encourage such voices to speak, encourage such accounts to emerge, because only then, can a true history of 1948 be written – a long way off, I think. History is layered and as we listen to different voices, the story reveals itself in differing representations and intonations. Let us be respectful of all these.
   The response to the book has been overwhelming. At the release meeting conducted on April 7, 2013 at Hyderabad, there were very many old people, both Hindu and Muslim, who wanted to speak out about what had happened. A dam had burst, it seemed, for Muslims, who vented their grief that day. To that extent, both the title and blurb are justified. When we were introducing a new voice and a new theme, both facing considerable resistance in society, we did think that we had more than some justification. In fact, if the book had not been so titled, probably Mr. Choudhary himself may not have read the book, and we would not have had the benefit of reading his review. If the book had been titled, `Memoirs of the Collector of Osmanabad,’ who would have read it? Instead, we need to discuss – why were these voices not heard before? To what level are we complicit in silencing these voices? What is the justification of a state which was built on virtually, genocide? How do we encourage this new literature? New voices are not easy to listen to, but we need to encourage and nurture them.

   Gita Ramaswamy, Hyderabad Book Trust.

   1. 

      Jampala Chowdary

      May 13, 2013 at 10:03 am

      My thanks to Ms. Ramaswamy for the detailed explanation.

      Though I am critical of the way this particular book is published and marketed, I have a high regard for Hyderabad Book Trust and am thankful for many of the titles that the Trust published. Actually, I take a – hitherto secret – personal proprietary interest in HBT since the time I made a small contribution, a contribution that I continue to be happy about, during my college days when some friends in Guntur were raising funds to get HBT off the ground.

      >>In fact, if the book had not been so titled, probably Mr. Choudhary himself may not have read the book, and we would not have had the benefit of reading his review. If the book had been titled, `Memoirs of the Collector of Osmanabad,’ who would have read it?

      My point exactly.
      I and others were induced to buy and read this book under a false premise.
      I hold HBT to a higher ethical standard.

      To clarify, I did not expect ‘a full-fledged historian’s account of 1948’; I merely expected – from the title – an account of the fall of Hyderabad, from a ‘player’. In stead, I got an account of the fall of Osmanabad and that of the post-fall legal problems of Mr. Hyder.

      Even ‘Memoirs of the Collector of Osmanabad’ would not do justice to this book as almost two thirds of the book was devoted to minute details of the legal fight of Mr. Hyder and was not about his time in Osmanabad. (Incidentally, I intended to but forgot to make a comment in my original note – Hyderabad fell in September. What was the October Coup in the original title?)

      >>We should also read into the silences of the marginalized – if Hyder had devoted just two paragraphs to what happened in 1948 elsewhere, he also writes that it is too difficult for him to write about it. ‘I cannot bring myself to write about them even now,’ he says. Shouldn’t the reader reflect on why it was difficult? Silences, often speak, and we need to cultivate the ear to hear them.

      It is not my intent to debate whether there was violence on Muslims after the fall of Hyderabad. The point I make is that there was more ink spent on the back cover talking about the violence on Muslims than the material available in the book itself. While the back cover, and even this explanation, make it seem like the book has substantial information about the violence on Muslims, Mr. Hyder’s interest does not seem to be on that topic at all. Two paragraphs in a 200+ page book hardly merit such a promotion. Even if Mr. Hyder was communicating thru his silence, neither he nor the editors provide enough context for that silence to be interpreted. Incidentally, the history about the genesis of this book makes it hard for me to perceive this as the ‘silence’ of a marginalized person.

      >>Instead, we need to discuss – why were these voices not heard before? To what level are we complicit in silencing these voices? What is the justification of a state which was built on virtually, genocide?

      The suggestion that the state ‘was built on virtually, genocide’ appears to be rather extreme, and is not justified by any evidence that is offered so far. I wonder if it is indicative of an editorial bias that resulted in the prominence given to the issue on the back cover and the misleading title.

      >>How do we encourage this new literature? New voices are not easy to listen to, but we need to encourage and nurture them.

      One of the things that I like about HBT is its continual enabling of these new and interesting voices to be heard in Telugu. I was hoping for a similar experience in this book and I am disappointed.

6. 

   gaddeswarup

   May 9, 2013 at 5:14 pm

   Reply

   There is another book “Telagana Movement 1944-51” (Vikas, New Delhi, 1981) by Barry Pavier, a British marxist. K. Balagopal was critical of the book but it is worth a look, I think.

7. 

   varaprasad

   May 9, 2013 at 8:13 am

   Reply

   exactly correct sir,ur a great analiser of every book,your narration is simply supeb,malladi novel la vuntundi.