Pattabhi Sitaramaiah:

It was proved that he was a Statesman. He took steps and though by keeping welfare of
future generations. A man of unusual gifts and force of character, Pattabhi rose to eminence
from poverty and obscurity through uninterrupted public service for over half a century. In the
movements in which he participated, he was a key figure. The indelible impress of his
personality can be seen in the institutions founded by him. An orator, a prolific writer, who
became the ‘official historian’ of the Congress, a pioneer in the fields of education, banking,
co-operation, and insurance in Andhra Desha, Pattabhi was a pragmatist who accomplished
with amazing success what he considered good to the community. He realized that a State
could have no greater asset than the initiative and enterprise of the individual.

He succeeded in every field of activity that he chose in the service of the people. When
he gave up medical practice in 1916, it was widely said that was a great blow to the profession.
It was said that had he continued as a Doctor of Medicine, he would have achieved greater
fame and prosperity and his diagnostic abilities would have been of immeasurable diagnostic
abilities and would have been immeasurable value to the people. When he declined the offer of
Editorship of the ‘Bombay Chronicle’ and when his English Weekly ‘Janmabhoomi’ went out of
existence in 1931, it was lamented that the Fleet Street was poorer by it. When he declined
Rajagopalachari’s offer of membership of the Senate of the Andhra University, with a hint that
he would be elevated to its Vice-Chancellorship, there was considerable disappointment in the
academic community. Indeed he was a constructive Statesman. He always remained as highly
balanced leader. The remark that Pattabhi had a ‘fatal flair for missing offices’ seemed apt.
Rajagopalachari summed up Pattabhi’s attitude when he once jocularly said to the latter: “it
may be that you will even refuse Congress Presidentship if it were offered.” Pattabhi, however,
was not ‘the man to shed a tear over sundered ties or lost opportunities.’ The ‘National Herald’
rightly observed that “in spite of the tragedy of National honors not equaling national renown
he has lost nothing of his buoyance or zest for work.”

He took to politics not only because politics seemed the best way to give display to his
talents, but because he felt that educated men had a vital role to play in arousing political
consciousness. Because of his success in private enterprise such as banking and co-operation,
he always held that there should not be much dependence on Government. That was why he
became a believer in Gandhian philosophy and a staunch opponent of the Socialists.

Pattabhi was an intellectual whose rise in public life was due to his intelligent
participation in public affairs.4 His being an intellectual was an advantage. The late Sri Prakasa,
a veteran Congress leader, wrote to Pattabhi: “you have always appeared to me to be ‘bursting’
with knowledge of everything. I have always been amazed at the amount of information you
carry” A close associate and follower of Pattabhi said that Pattabhi had ‘an analytical brain’ and
that ‘he would analyze men and matters drawing conclusions and give expression to them
Without fear or favour.’
 Like Gokhale, observed a writer, Pattabhi was a graduate at eighteen and like
Chintamani he was a walking encyclopaedia. Those that came in contact with him could not but
be impressed by his intellectual abilities. He had “a mind,” wrote Homi J.H. Taleyarkhan, “as
sharp as a razor blade and as clear as a blue summer sky. During practically a whole evening I
spent with him I could not see a wisp of could in his arguments, nor a trace of hesitation in his
massive and masterly marshaling of facts.” He was an authority on a variety of subjects ranging
from Khaddar to economic imperialism, Congress history to a constructive Programme, and
from medicine to Gandhian philosophy. His speeches were marked by clarity, vigor and deep
knowledge. One, however, notices that they occasionally smack of a metaphorical style. In his
attempt to make complicated issues simple he sometimes resorted to analogies and similes. On
the whole, they reveal his sharp memory and rare ability to present problems in a simple way
Pattabhi’s success lay in that he proved how intellectuality and pragmatism could be combined.

If his being an intellectual was an advantage to Pattabhi. It also proved to be a handicap

in some ways. Intellectuals suffered from many handicaps in Indian politics. As William Robson
observed: “In India, the intellectuals seem somehow to be relegated to the sidelines, partly by
their own choice but mainly by the decision of others.”9 There has been in India a “wide-spread
failure to recognize the role of the intellectual in society.”10 If Pattabhi did not get the
recognition he deserved, it was partly due to the fact that he suffered from the trappings of an
intellectual. Conformity with the Gandhian standards seemed to him more important than the
expectation of rewards. That he chose to be an unswerving ‘No-Changer,’ whereas all his
colleagues changed their positions during 1936-37 indicates the importance he attached to
principles. In certain matters such as his attitude towards Council-entry, Pattabhi had, what
Lewis J. Edinger11 would call, “a dogmatic personality with a closed belief system.”

When asked to explain why in spite of his abilities, he could not occupy high
governmental positions, Pattabhi replied that leadership meant (1) catering to the tastes of the
followers, (2) ambition to get it, (3) advertisement of oneself irrespective of modesty, and (4)
money for all these purposes. He said that he possessed none of them. Among the qualities,
listed by Lewis J.Edinger, necessary for successful leadership, Pattabhi possessed was only a
few. One such quality which Pattabhi possessed was ‘strong motivation and the drive and
energy to pursue firmly held goals.’ A dominating feature of Pattabhi’s personality was his
strong will power.

A drag on Pattabhi’s political career was his ‘candor and blunt manners.’ His frankness
on which he prided himself brought him a number of enemies. He was also, like the Andhra
Brahmin leaders, an individualist, though in the national politics he often suppressed his
individualist streak for the sake of Party discipline. But his mind was too independent to submit
itself to the machinations of Party politics. He himself admitted: “I do not drill with the Party. An
independent mind is an inconvenient factor in Party organization.” His spirit of independence
harmed only himself. Even though he disagreed and crossed swords with the powerful men in
the Party, he never rebelled against the leadership when he was ignored or insulted.
 Being a South Indian was considered a handicap in Indian politics. It used to be said that
Pattabhi would have occupied higher positions if he were not an Andhra. It must, however, be
said that this factor was not so much of a handicap in the case of Pattabhi as it was in the case
of some other South Indian leaders, notably T.Prakasam.

Pattabhi did pioneering work in the Andhra movement and the State’s People’s
Movement. But he did not get popular recognition for the work he did. It was because he was a
leader without charisma. In the Andhra movement, Prakasam was a household name. In the
State’s People’s movement Nehru was hailed for his support to the State’s People. But much
before Prakasam in Andhra and Nehru in A.I.S.P.C. stepped in, Pattabhi had already done solid
groundwork. In a society in which images count more than intellect with the large majority of
people, no leader without an image can hope to get popular support.

A true democrat, he believed that democracy like Non-violence was not an end in itself
but a means. Democracy is an endeavor, an attitude and spirit. “It must dwell in each layer of
authority, in every act of administration, in all symbols of power.” Hard work, respect for
human dignity and an awareness of one’s obligations to society were the ideals, he cherished.
To him the fulfilment of one’s Responsibilities was more important than the assertion of one’s
rights. Self-effacing Pattabhi, as Sri Prakasam, another stalwart of the older generation,
observed, was one of those who stress on integrity in public life. Although he advocated a
separate Andhra State, he had high regard for all regions, languages and faiths. He spent many
years in Madras and enjoyed the confidence of several Tamil leaders. He presided over the
meetings of the Karnataka Maha Sabha, delivered a convocation address in Sanskrit, and on
some important occasions made his speeches in Urdu and Hindi. A staunch nationalist who
stood for Hindu-Muslim unity, he believed in the oneness of India. He felt that India’s heritage
and moral supremacy were the real strength of India and believed in a synthesis of the past and
the present. India should not sacrifice her high ideals for the sake of material prosperity. He
praised Nehru for keeping India nonaligned. Modem India was shaped by Gandhi, whose
“teachings constitute forever the new Decalogue of Indian democracy.” Our heaven, said
Pattabhi, is democracy and Swaraj must be transformed into Ramraj.

One of the senior Congressmen, Pattabhi was uninterruptedly associated with the
Congress from its earliest times till his death in 1959. His loyalty and disciplined service were
well-known. He was once called the sage of our struggle for freedom.’ In the pre-Gandhian era,
he was known as a Congressman with ‘the head of a liberal and the heart of an extremist.’ As a
Congressman, Pattabhi’s role was mostly in the Committees, particularly in the Working
Committee. He was ‘an outstanding Right Wing leader’ and lent strong support to his colleagues
like Patel and Rajendra Prasad. At a time when the relations between the Party and the
Government were being redefined, he, as Congress President was of considerable help to both
of them. Politically, he was close to Rajendra Prasad, Patel, Rajagopalachari, Maulana and Azad
and Shanker Rao Deo. Like Deo, he was an orthodox Gandhian. He lacked the gentleness of
RajendraPrasad, the tact of Rajagopalachari, the ruthlessness of Patel and the charisma of
Nehru. As a follower of Gandhi, he not only publicized the Gandhian discourses but ‘translated
precept in terms of concrete action’ and willingly bowed down to Gandhi’s rulings. “The book of
Gandhi’s life,” Pattabhi wrote, “within whose sphere I have been an atom floating about........ is
of course my main guide and inspiration.’ He took to the Gandhian programmes at a time when
few devoted attention to them. Personally he was close to Rajendra Prasad.

The sacrifices and services made by many great men ennobled the struggle for freedom.
The leaders bore many a burden cheerfully. They had indeed stoic fortitude and remarkable
ability to laugh with others as well as at themselves. For example, humor was the forte of
Pattabhi. He had robust commonsense and a devastating repartee. At a meeting of the
Congress Party, once discussion turned to the question of daily allowance. Rajakumari Amrit
Kaur suggested that it should be reduced from Rs.45/- (as it existed) to Rs.22/- Dr.P.C. Ghosh
seconded it and Kripalani and his wife Sucheta supported it Pattabhi got up and said that the
mover (Amrit Kaur) came from a Royal family, the person who seconded it, Gosh, was a
bachelor and the Kripalanis were without children and all of them were therefore, not
competent to speak on daily allowance. Amidst laughter, the question was dropped when the
Constituent Assembly announced the names of three-well-known lawyers , S. Varadachari,
Alladi Krishna swami Iyer and B.N.Mitter, as members of the Committee to prepare a section on
Citizenship, Pattabhi suggested that to the Committee of three lawyers of eminence, might be
added a man of Commonsense. When this Committee in its report later took note only of those
born after the Union came into being, Pattabhi quipped “what about those born before the
Union ?

Pattabhi Sitaramayya fought ‘his way to his vast responsibilities with rare courage’ and
put into practice what he believed would be useful to the people. His constructive work, be it in
the small town of Masulipatnam, where he first launched his schemes of social and political
reconstruction or in national organization like the Congress, was of immense value. But
whenever he heard or felt that he should have scaled greater heights in the political and social
life of India, Pattabhi used to console himself by taking a detached view, the typical of a true
Hindu. Offer thorough investigation of his works and qualities it is proved that he was real
Statesman.
 ANDHRA MAHA SABHA

ORIGIN AND GROWTH

By the early 20th century, the concept of nationalism and sub-nationalism gained
significantly a new outlook. The Vandemataram Movement, a sequal to the Partition of
Bengal, strengthened the cause for the formation of states on lingustic basis. The step motherly
attitude which the Telugu speaking people were receiving m the composite Madras Presidency
and the inadequate educational, employment and other opportunities in addition to
subordinating their cultural identity to the composite culture of the presidency made the
people of Andhra to raise the bogy of a separate Andhra Province like Bihar. There can be no
doubt that the Andhra Movement was largely moulded and influenced right from its inception
by the Beheree Movement. Prom 1907 onwards various issues and efforts of the Telugu people
culminated m the genesis of the Andhra Mahasabha.

The movement for the creation of a separate Province for the Andhras had its origin as
noticed earlier an a casual discussion between the members of the Young Men's Literary
Association of Guntur m the Year 1911- The Andhra province issue was discussed m the
Subjects Committee of the 21st Krishna-Guntur District Conference held at Nidadavolu m May
1912. In this Conference Valluri Suryanarayana Rao, a lawyer from Masulipatam, argued that
the eastern districts (i.e. Coastal Telugu Districts) be separated from the Tamils and added to
the Central Provinces since there had been rumours m the previous years that the districts of
Ganjam, Visakhapatnam, Godavari and, Krishra would be joined to the Central Provinces m case
the office of Lieutenant Governer was created there. Some young men suggested that it would
be better to agitate first for ths formation of a Province for the Andhras comprising the Coastal
and the Ceded Districts. It was also suggested that they could work for the unity of the
contiguous eastern Telugu districts in the Nizam's Dominion and the Telugu speaking areas in
the Central Provinces.

Even m 1911 there appeared some letters in the Krishna Patrika advocating for a
separate Province. A Conference to discuss about matters other than politics was held in
Bandar m 1908 under the leadership of Jonnavithula Gurunadham. These moves and proposals
were significant as they commanded the attention of the Andhras. The behaviour of the young
lawyer, Narayana Rao of Guntur who got angry over the appointment of a certain individual
made by the sub-judge for a petty post from his home town Kumbhakonam overlooking several
Telugu applicants might be a trivial incident, but the depth of the problem was much deeper as
Andhras began to probe and assess the details and collect statistics and examine the
circumstances for their backwardness m various fields.

MAJOR FACTORS FOR THE RISE OP THE MOVEMENT

Heteregeneous people speaking different languages were forced to live m composite

provinces like Madras and Bombay. The common man was put to lot of inconveniencies m the
administrative matters since he had to depend mostly on the translations of Government
transactions. About this, the Andhra Patrika observed that it was absolutely essential
that the administration should be carried out m the vernacular of the Province so that the
people could take a lively interest m the affairs of the Province. There was a ready example of
Bengalis who secured unity and strength for themselves by leading an independent movement
along the lines suited to their own racial and cultural development. So also the Telugu people
were entitled to agitate for such opportunities and advancement. The Andras, who were
twenty-two million strong constituted the third largest community in India, had in them
potentialities of a fine sub-nationality. They had an ancient culture. They were proud of their
superb arts and crafts and spoke a fine language of the East.

There were Andhras who had been in public life end occupied high positions but they
were known as Madrasis bracketed along with several other communities of South India. To a
North Indian whether one was an Andhra or a Tamilian, or a kannadiga or a Malayalee it made
no difference for him. He called all as Madrasis. Men of outstanding position in public life from
Andhra like Veeresalmgam in the field of Social Reforms or Nyapathi Subha Rao and Ganjam
Venkataratnam m the field of politics were only Madrasis and nothing else. The Andhras had to
think themselves for this obscurity.

In the constitutional affairs and the involvement of Indians m the process of law making
and administration the legislative council was considered most significant. But in the Madras
Legislative Council out of the seven elected members only two were Andhras. Again of these
two one was generally being held by a Tamilian settled m Telugu Districts Although there was
no marked Political upheaval in the Andhradesa any more than in the other Provinces, still the
former stole a march over the rest m the regularity of holding the District Congress meetings in
various areas, which voiced the grievances of ryots against economic exploitation m the region
etc., and resorted to constitutional methods like petitioning, protesting and praying.

There were a number of gross inequalities between the Andhra and non-Andhra areas in
the Madras Presidency. Madras, the capital of the Presidency was not located in the Andhra
area. The disadvantages consequent on this were many. Higher Education including the
technical and professional education was not within the reach of the Telugu people. This denied
them many of the higher appointments m Government service even in Andhra region.
Secondly, the Anglo-Indian officers with very little knowledge of Telugu could not properly
understand the problems of the people. Further, the grievances of the Telugu people were not
properly brought to tie notice of the Government.

In respect of higher centres of learning, out of thirty-one colleges m the Madras

Presidency, there were only three first grade colleges and five second grade colleges in the
Andhra area. Similarly, out of 284 Assistant Surgeons there were only 12 and 4 out of 120
M.B.C.M.Degree holders. Further, it was felt that in the administration and other matters non-
Telugu people were dominating in the Andhra area. This disparity and negligence of the Telugu
speaking areas later gained expression in the demand for a separate Andhra Province.