67

CHAPTER – III

KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH’S ROLE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE FREEDOM STRUGGLE OF

INDIA AND UNIFICATION OF KARNATAKA

3.1 INTRODUCTION

India has a very rich culture and historical background. British ruled India

for 100 years till the people tenuously fought for the freedom and got the

independence in 1947. Many from all over the country sacrificed their lives during

freedom struggle. Some of the great leaders of freedom struggle are Mahatma

Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Rajgopalchari, Balagangadarnath

Tilak and other leaders.

Karnataka also saw many great leaders who participated actively for the

cause of freedom. Some of them were Sangolirayanna, Kitturu Chennamma,

Nitturu Shrinivas, S. Nijalingappa, and Kengal Hanumanthaiah.1 The influence of

Mahatma Gandhi and Rajgopalchari made Kengal Hanumanthaiah to plunge into

freedom struggle. His freedom struggle started with participation in the agitations.

Kengal Hanumanthaiah played an important role in the “Shivapuradhvaja

Sathyagraha” and “Quit India movement”.2

Kengal Hanumanthaiah played a vital role in the unification of Karnataka.

Immediately after the independence, linguistic problem arose as Kannada-

speaking people were split between Mysore, Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh

and Tamil Nadu. Dissension rose among Kannada-speaking people as they were in

1 Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka, MCC Publications, Bangalore, 2001, p. 291. 2 Venkappa Gowda Konandur, Nava Mysore Shilpi, Yashasvi Prakashana, Bangalore, 1985, p. 44.

68

minority in these states. The role of Kengal Hanumanthaiah is analyzed with

respect to the leadership style that he adopted to achieve the goals. This chapter

discusses in detail the theory of leadership, approaches to different styles, types of

leadership and its effect on achieving goals and leadership style adopted by

Kengal Hanumanthaiah.

3.2 THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

A. Definition Of Leadership

In spite of the overwhelming significance of leadership role, there is no

unanimous characteristics that could define leadership. Chester Barnard states,

“Indeed, I have never observed any leader who was able to state adequately or

intelligently why he was able to be a leader, nor any statement of followers that

acceptably expressed why they followed”.3 Leadership is often confused with

personal pre-eminence. Leadership has more than one meaning. Dictionary

meaning of the verb ‘to lead’ shows that the term is used in two different senses.

In the first sense, it means “to excel, to be in advance, to be prominent”, in the

second sense it means “to guide others, to be head of an organization; to hold

command.” A useful distinction can, thus, be drawn between personal leadership

and management leadership. A person, who is born with the talent for personal

leadership, must learn management leadership.4

Leadership should not be equated with command and fear. More than

coercion, persuasion and inspiration motivate successful leadership. Leadership

has, thus, been defined as “the activity of persuading people to cooperate in the

3 Chester Barnard, Organisation and Management, Cambridge (Mass), Harvard University press, 1948,

pp. 37-38. 4 Allen L.A., Management and Organisation, New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1958, p. 5.

69

achievement of a common objective”.5 In a similar vein, Terry G.R. defines it as

“the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for mutual objectives”.6

Seckler-Hudson states, “Leadership in large organizations means influencing and

energizing people to work together in a common effort to achieve the purposes of

the enterprise”.7 According to Chester Barnard “Leadership refers to the quality of

the behavior of individuals, whereby they guide people in the activities in

organized effort”.8 In his opinion, leadership “depends upon three things: 1. the

individual, 2. the followers and 3. the conditions”.9 The relationship between

personality and followers of the leadership has vividly been described by Mary

Parker Follett as, “We have now to lay somewhat less stress than formerly on this

matter of the leader influencing his group because we now think of the leader as

being influenced by his group”. One of the Chief Justices, who spoke to Follett,

described leadership as being a reciprocal relation, which form the main

characteristic of leadership. Follett personally terms leadership as a circular

response, in which the current goes both ways. She states that communication

channels should be kept open so that there is an undisrupted flow of information

all the time. When communication gets dammed up, effective leadership stops.

Hence, leadership is about not only what the leader does to the group, but also

what the group does to the leader.10 The third variable is the conditions in which

the leadership operates. Millet said that “leadership is often made or broken by

5 Koonz, H. and O’Donnell G., Principles of Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1955,

p. 69. 6 Terry G.R., Principles of Management, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1956, p. 18. 7 Seckler-Hudson, C., Organisation and Management, Washington D.C., The American University

Press, 1937, p. 138. 8 Chester Barnard, Organisation and Management, op.cit. , p. 83. 9 Ibid, p. 84. 10 Metcaff, H.C. and Urwick, L. (Eds.), Dynamic administration. The collected papers of Mary parker

Follet, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1947, pp. 247-248.

70

circumstances”.11 He further states that, “the essential circumstances of leadership

are two-fold political and institutional. By the political conditions of

administrative leadership, we mean the need to be responsive to external political

direction and control. By institutional conditions of leadership, we mean the need

to be responsive to the requirements of internal operation of keeping an

administrative agency in actual running order”.12

Koontz and O’Donnell refer to three different approaches to leadership:

traitist, siuationist and elementalist.13 The traitist “adopted an inductive procedure,

observing those recognized as leaders and enumerating the traits each possessed.

Qualities held in common were assumed to be essential, and enumeration was

offered as a standard for measuring leadership potential.14 Ordway Tead, Chester

Barnard and Schell are prominent advocates of this approach. The difficultly with

this theory, however, is that there is no evidence of common qualities of

leadership. The traistist approach seldom agrees on common qualities of

leadership and thus, fails to furnish universally acceptable traits. The situationist

approach is concerned more with evolving a method for identifying leaders:

“Their starting point is to assume that certain elements, such as, speech,

intelligence, stability, and persistence, are essential in leaders. The next step is to

place a candidate in a group and observe how he acts under trail situations that are

constructed as realistically as possible.15 This approach, has, however, been used

only on an experimental basis for the selection of army and police officers in

11 Millet, J.D., Management in the public service, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1954,

p. 7. 12 Ibid, pp. 37-38. 13 Koonz, H. and O’Donnell, G., Principles of Management, op.cit., Chapter 5. 14 Ibid, p. 64. 15 Ibid, p. 66.

71

certain western countries, like Germany and the USA. The proponents of the

elementalist approach “are concerned with refining the concepts of leadership

traits, correlating these with leadership success, and thus, developing a value for

each”.16 According to all these approaches, the characteristics of the leader can be

understood by studying his followers.

Barnard points to the four main functions that are performed by a

leader, namely 1. determining objectives, 2. the manipulation of means, 3. control

of the instrumentality of action and 4. stimulation of coordinated action.17

B. Contemporary Views On Leadership

(i) Inspirational Approach To Leadership

This approach views leader as individuals who inspire followers through

their words, ideas and behavior. To inspire, leaders adopt ‘framing’ technique

which refers to the use of language in such a way that followers could feel the way

the leaders see it.

Two theories explain this approach: Charismatic leadership and

Transformation leadership. Max Weber was the first to discuss Charismatic

Leadership. Charisma means exceptional qualities by which a person becomes a

leader. Charismatic leaders have four essential characters:

1. Visionary

2. Willing to take personal risk to achieve vision.

3. Sensitive to followers.

4. Exhibit extraordinary behavior.

16 Ibid, p. 67. 17 Chester Barnard, Organisation and Management, op.cit. , p. 85.

72

Charismatic leadership believes that leaders are born; however, if a person

desires to be become a charismatic leader, he/she can employ the following three

steps:

1. Develop the ‘aura’ of charisma by being optimistic, enthusiastic, and

communicative through verbal and non-verbal cues.

2. Draw others in by creating a bond that inspires others to follow.

3. Bring out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions.

Charismatic Leaders influence followers by using four step processes

1. Having a vision and mission statement. They are able to articulate the

organization vision to their followers by having a long term strategy on how to

attain goals.

2. By motivating the followers for high performance and express confidence that

followers can attain them.

3. Setting an example for followers to imitate.

4. Engaging in emotional and often unconventional behaviour to demonstrate

courage and convictions about the vision.

Charismatic leader’s effectiveness depends upon situation. It is most

effective when follower’s task has ideological component or when environment

involves higher degree of stress and uncertainty. Charismatic leaders are better in

handling organization at a macro level than at micro level. Effectiveness of this

type of leadership depends upon the personality, hence all followers may not be

equally affected by it.

Charismatic leaders sometimes may misuse their charisma and fulfill their

individual interest rather than organizational interest. Those who do not fall under

73

such category and who do not exhibit such behavior are called ‘Level 5’ having

the following qualities.

1. Individual capability

2. Term skill

3. Managerial competence

4. Ability to stimulate offers to high performance

5. Paradoxical blend of personal humbleness and professional will.

(ii) Transformational Leaders

Transformational leaders have a profound and extraordinary effect on

followers. They are able to inspire their followers to transcend above their own

self-interest for a particular cause. Several theories have been forward in this

regard. Some of them include Ohio, Fred Fiddler’s Model, Path Goal Model

theory and leader-participation theories. The qualities of the leaders put-forth are

as follows:

I. Individual consideration: Leader gives personal attention and treats each

employee individually. He is liberal with advices when required.

II. Intellectual stimulation: Leader communicates high expectations, uses

symbols to focus efforts, express important purposes in ways that could be

understood and followed by the followers.

III. Inspirational motivation: Leader communicates high expectations, uses

symbols to focus efforts, express important purposes in simple ways.

IV. Idealized influences: Leader provides vision and communicates mission.

74

(iii) Transactional Leaders

Transactional leaders are those who guide or motivate their followers in the

direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirement. Four

characteristics of transactional leaders are as follows:

I. Laissez-Faire: Leader abdicates responsibility and avoids making decision.

II. Management by Exception (MBE) (passive style): Leader intervenes only

when standards are not met.

III. MBE (active): Leader watches and searches for deviation from rules and

takes corrective measures when deviations are identified.

IV. Contingent reward: Leader exchanges rewards for efforts.

Though transformational and transactional leaderships are not opposite; the

transformational leadership is built on top of transactional leadership.

The outcome of transformational leaders is much better, as the followers

are made to put higher levels of efforts that increases their performance which

could be expected to be much higher than what was expected by them. Further, it

produces better yield if the transactional leadership approach alone is used.

(iv) Authentic Leaders

Authentic leaders are clear on their objective. They know who they are,

know what they believe in and act on those values and beliefs openly and

candidly. Their followers would consider them to be ethical people.

These leaders are ethical in all their dealings. Their followers therefore

trust them. In the authentic leadership style ethics and trust are integrated. Primary

quality of authentic leaders is trust. They trust themselves and others so they are

able to share information freely, encourage open communication and adhere to

75

their ideals even in difficult situations, which make their followers to trust in these

leaders.

(v) Self Leadership

A set of process through which individuals control their own behavior is

called as self leadership. Self leaders help their followers to lead themselves and

they do this by developing leadership capacity in others and nurturing them so that

their followers no longer need to depend on formal leaders for direction and

motivation.18

C. Development Of Leadership

Traditionally it is accepted that managers and executive leaders are ‘born’

rather than ‘made’. Often in the past it has been believed that it is difficult to train

a person to be leader unless it is within them to be leaders. Despite these

assumptions, many attempts have been made to produce leaders through

“coaching” by mentors. Enormous effort has been made by many modern business

schools to create and transform leaders. The arrival of different kinds of

businesses, opening of economy, advent of IT/ITES process have resulted in the

need for leaders, who could handle complex and technical nature of administrative

process. Raising leaders through systematic and planned training programs have

consequently resulted in greater success in creating leaders at every level. In the

words of Chester Barnard, “I suppose no one doubts that without education the

supply of leaders to organizations competent for conditions of the modern world

would be wholly inadequate and many of us suspect that if we knew better how to

train men, we should be much better able than we are able to cope with the social

18 Vajiram and Ravi, Public administration, Vol. V, New Delhi, 2010, pp. 7-10.

76

dilemmas we confront”.19 Chester Barnard in his work “Education for Executives”

makes a penetrating analysis of the needs of the executive and suggests methods to

develop these requirements.

1. “Need for board interests and wide imagination and understanding:” This can

be inculcated by a system of general education supplemented by self-education

on the part of executive. Barnard suggests that giving opportunity to improve

their knowledge and graze into fresher and wider pastures of understanding

through “‘sabbatical leave” would create leaders specific to roles. In India, the

government has already introduced general education at the university level

and public servants are being encouraged to go on “sabbatical leave” for

education and training. Government conducts short term courses, refresher

courses, seminars, conferences, and workshops are being organized with the

same end in view.

2. Superior intellectual capacities: A highly cultivated and trained mind is

essential to understand the modern world of complex technologies and intricate

techniques. This aspect is could be fulfilled through formal education and

training.

3. Understanding Human relations: “The need of such understanding is of

primary importance to the executive, for human relations are the essence of

managerial, employee, public and political relations. In most cases, these rather

than sciences, technology, law or finance are the central areas of the executive

functions. According to Barnard, there are three aspects to this problem.

19 Chester Barnard, op.cit., p. 194.

77

a. Appreciation of non-rational behavior of human beings. Man’s behaviour is

not always rational. Quite often emotions and moods determine his conduct.

b. An understanding of the nature of the general social system.

c. An understanding of formal organization as organic and evolving systems.

The leadership style cannot be strictly according to the rules. It needs to be

understood that organizations cannot be built up on paper in accordance

with some preconceived notion. Organizations consist of different types of

people who cannot be left out in building up or running an organization but

should be carried along.

All these three aspects can be taught through formal instruction in

educational institutions.

D. Importance Of Persuasion In Human Affairs

In a democratic society, autocratic leadership style does not yield good

results nor is acceptable. Therefore, it is rightly said that the essence of

administrative leadership is not command, but persuasion, particularly in a

democratic society. This specific style can be groomed through training in the act

of expression through writing, conversation or public speaking.

The question that now remains to be answered is the method of education

and training executives. The stupendous effect of training and education cannot be

exaggerated. However, the prerequisite for specific preparatory training for

leadership and for formal leadership is the intellectual capacity of the person,

wherein he/she is capable of inculcating general and specific knowledge. Barnard

draws a distinction between knowledge and skill in this connection, and regards

the latter as more important. He defines skill as “the effective behavior by which

78

the appropriate adjustment to the infinite complexity of the concrete is

established,” and this may depend more on experience or even intuition. It must be

admitted that many attributes of leadership are not acquired through formal

training. They may either be discovered or grown out of experience.20

According to Chester Barnard, the selection of candidates to leadership

should be based on the specific qualities of the candidates, who have “balance,

perspective, and proportion,” which is relevant to leadership. These qualities are to

be acquired through experience in leading.21 Opportunity to gain experience is

essential to discover the leadership qualities. Therefore, administrators should be

encouraged to gain experience in leadership outside their organization. They then

need to put in practice what they have learnt about leading, as acquiring

knowledge without practicing would neither benefit them nor those who are

associated with them. There is no substitute to a person’s experience in carving out

a place for himself against odds. In brief, proper method of selection, formal

education and training, and informal as well as formal experience will be needed

to create the requisite quality of leaders in modern society. The truth, however,

remains that leadership is not given, it is assumed.22

E. Self-Styled Leadership

As indicated earlier, Kengal Hanumanthaiah had a very specific style,

which has been more clearly, revealed in his political activities of late 1930s.

Some of the specific activities that he was involved during his time, implicated

him as a leader of outstanding quality. He played an important role in the merger

20 Avasthi and Maheswari, Public administration, Laxminarayana Agarwal Publications, Agra, India,

2007, pp. 280-281. 21 Ibid, p. 282. 22 Ibid, p. 282.

79

of Praja Party into Mysore Congress Organization. Merging a political party with

another requires a buy-in from all those involved as they need to be convinced

about the motives as well as the benefits. Factional politics were actively

advocated in those times by many of the Praja party political leaders. He not only

identified this evil but also reasoned out to the leaders the undesirable effects of

such behavior and made them realize the harmful side effects and made them

concede to the broader ideals of freedom movement. The untiring efforts resulted

in the acceptance of a broader political point of view, which eventually caused the

merger of Praja Party with Mysore Congress Organization.

It is very interesting to note that though Kengal Hanumanthaiah was a

prominent congressman, he could not get along well with the main stream

political leaders, who belonged to the state Mysore Congress. Throughout the

pre-independence period, the Mysore Congress party was controlled by a few

senior leaders, in which Kengal Hanumanthaiah could never fit. His views and

perceptions were very different from the other leaders, which led to friction. He

was often referred to as a discontented congressman. Two factions of discontented

congressmen developed within the party. One faction mainly consisted of party

workers from Bangalore and Mysore cities, who had a sophisticated grasp of

nationalist ideology. This group included some of the older Brahmin congressmen,

as well as some much younger nationalist leaders from several communities.

James Manor writes that this group was led by Kengal Hanumanthaiah, who was

referred as a fiery young Gangedikar Vokkaliga lawyer from Bangalore city.23

23 Venkappa Gowda Konandur, op.cit., p. 119.

80

In the discussion with the several prominent people who were part of

Congress party at that time, the question was posed as to whether Kengal

Hanumanthaiah should be characterised as a dissident leader. They strongly

disagreed with this characterization. Most of them felt that he always looked at

things differently from others, his views were broad. Kengal Hanumanthaiah was,

therefore, characterized as a self-styled leader, who had his own perspective in

comprehending the political situation. They, further, agreed that he was objective

in his outlook; his disagreement with the senior leaders was mainly to convey the

genuine differences he had, and this could not be termed as dissidence.24 As many

leaders found it difficult to comprehend his perception, there also developed an

opinion that Kengal Hanumanthaiah was an abrasive person, thence he was given

a number of outwardly prestigious but essentially powerless posts in the party.

He was not included in the inner circle of the congress during 1938, which

consisted of leaders like H.B. Gundappa Gowda, H.S. Dasappa, S. Nijalingappa,

H. Siddaiah, K.T. Bhashyam and T. Subramanyam.

Though he was sidelined, he continued to work in different capacities.

After he became a full time member of the congress party in 1936, he became

President of the Bangalore district unit of the Congress party. After the formation

of Mysore Congress in 1937, he was made the member of Congress Working

Committee and Legislative Council. In the year 1940, Kengal Hanumanthaiah

became a member of Bangalore City Corporation. As a member, he undertook a

24 As part of conducting interviews with similar knowledgeable persons, an opinion emerged about

Kengal Hanumanthaiah being characterized as “dissident” invariably everybody felt this was not so. They said that Kengal Hanumanthaiah was mainly interested in party building process during that time and whatever differences he had with ruling politicians was mainly with a view to strengthen the party machinery especially at the grassroots.

81

series of developmental measures especially with reference to improvement of the

infrastructural aspects of Bangalore district.

From the political career point of view, the year 1941 was significant for

Kengal Hanumanthaiah, as he was elected for the first time to the Mysore

Representative Assembly, and thus became a member of the State Legislature. It

needs to be mentioned that he was a member of the State Legislature for a record

period of 20 years and this was broken only in 1962, when he was elected as a

member of the Union Parliament.

As a member of the Representative Assembly, Kengal Hanumanthaiah was

fearless in criticizing against unfair acts of the Assembly. Kengal Hanumanthaiah

provoked by the appointment of “outsiders” to the state administration, he raised

his voice against the appointment of “foreigners” to the important positions in the

state administration in the first session itself. He strongly opposed the resolution of

appointing outsiders like Arcott Ramaswamy as Diwan of Mysore.25 He used to

fearlessly criticise the functioning of the princely administration. As a member of

the Representative Assembly, he proved to be a good parliamentarian in

articulating the party stand on various socio-economic and political issues.

In 1942, Kengal Hanumanthaiah was drawn into the Quit India Movement

launched by Mahatma Gandhi. He was assigned the responsibility of conveying

congress displeasure over the unjust nature of British rule. He was also

instrumental in mobilising the masses for the Quit India Movement agitation.

Several other state congress leaders also participated in the Quit India Movement;

some prominent personalities were T. Subramanyam, K.C. Reddy, K.T. Bhashyam,

25 Prathibavantha Samsadhiya Patugala Badhuku Baraha Malike Kengal Hanumanthaiah, Karnataka

Vidhana Sabha Secretariat, Bangalore, 1998, p. 7.

82

T. Siddalingayya, etc. Along with Kengal Hanumanthaiah, all these leaders were

also arrested during the agitation.

Kengal Hanumanthaiah was once again elected to the Representative

Assembly in 1944. He was given the responsibility as a leader of the state

Congress, which he fulfilled with all fervor till 1949. He made several speeches in

the Representative Assembly; some of the speeches made a mark that are

remembered even today. He was concerned about the welfare of the people; his

speeches were strongly peppered with a number of issues, and the analysis of these

speeches are summarized below.

The speeches delivered on 8th June 1944 by Kengal Hanumanthaiah

addressed the importance of accurate assessment of the socio-economic situation.

He understood the need for scientific analysis of data captured, hence he identified

the need to have a separate wing for Department of Statistics that would facilitate

scientific assessment of socio-economic situation prevailing during the time. In

addition, he also felt that each department should have its own statistical wing for

assessing the socio-economic situation, which would facilitate the undertaking of a

number of developmental measures. He tried to explain the importance of

scientific assessment of the situation through an interesting annotation, in which

he said the diseased person is cured half if he knows his nature of the disease

before hand. Thus, we understand the intellectual acumen of Kengal

Hanumanthaiah to critically assess the socio-economic situation to address it

effectively through scientific methods.

In another speech in the Representative Assembly delivered on 10th June

1944, Kengal Hanumanthaiah forcefully dealt with the issue of compulsory

83

education. Education inculcates the cultural and national values, liberating people

from ignorance, and prejudice. It creates a sense of belonging with knowledge,

skill technique, and information that enables an individual to know his/her rights

and duties towards their nation, society and family. Education expands the horizon

of vision and outlook, provokes the sense of creative competition and a arduous

desire to progress towards path of truth, and thereby acquire the ability to fight

against ignorance, corruption, injustice, disparity, violence, and communalism,

which are considered to be the hindrance for the progress of the nation. Kengal

Hanumanthaiah knowing well the importance of education strove hard to get

himself educated. The struggle for education in the earlier days of his life

sharpened his consciousness towards a penchant desire to make education

available for all. Primary education alone will not suffice to transform the thought

process of a man. He believed that it is not enough to provide just compulsory

primary education but should be extended to the elementary level, which includes

10 years of education.26 Princely states were not keen on implementing

compulsory education to all due to lack of clarity and plan for the future education

process. He took the princely state authorities to task for not implementing the

recommendations of Secondary Advisory Board of Education and the report of

Sergeant Commission on education. One of the main recommendations from the

Sergeant Report was to provide compulsory education up to 14 years of age.

Further he boldly pointed out the flaw in the ruling regime motives as they did not

take the enforcement of compulsory education seriously for the lack of definite

future agenda of implementing compulsory education. Along with challenge, he

26 Ibid, pp. 50-62.

84

also provided solutions to prepare a blue print for the advocacy for compulsory

education.27

Kengal Hanumanthaiah always had a straight forward approach in dealing

with challenges, while doing so he neither spared the opposition nor the ruling

party. He ensured that he did not miss an opportunity to expose the then ruling

establishment. In one of his speeches delivered on 31st May 1946 in the

Representative Assembly, he vehemently argued that the assembly should call for

a discussion on the recommendations made by the British Cabinet Mission. It was

found that princely authorities were diplomatically avoiding this issue for

discussion.

Similarly, on another occasion, he argued that an in-depth discussion

should be held on the issue of election of members to the constituent assembly. He

criticized the Representative Assembly for behaving like a state representative

council concerned only about the interests of the princely regime not as a

representative body of the people. He exhorted the princely regime to assume a

broad mind-set in matters of political affairs.28

The analysed speeches demonstrates the leadership quality of Kengal

Hanumanthaiah, which was unique, that had no fear or favor for any particular

sect but stood for what was considered to be impartial in approach favouring the

cause of the people above all else.

27 Ibid, p. 50. 28 Ibid, p. 54.

85

3.3 KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH’S ROLE IN FREEDOM STRUGGLE

OF INDIA

Leaders are born and not made and the leadership is rooted deeply in the

characteristics of a leader. Kengal Hanumanthaiah falls into the group of born

leader, and this was manifested right from his early age.29 The hard economic

circumstances during his early age forced him to be dependent upon many people

and sharing their accommodation. Yet he learnt to think independently and

articulate his views fearlessly. Besides, the nationalist ethos prevailing at that time

made him a socially sensitive and politically conscious person.

(i) As a Student Representator

Students constituted an important component of the nationalist struggle in

India. Their motivations during the time were so strong that they were prepared to

sacrifice their education in the interest of freedom movement. The need of the

hour was to channalise their energy into an organized framework so as to facilitate

collective expression. All over India several student associations cropped and

there were able student leaders who were ready to lead these associations.

Kengal Hanumanthaiah was one among the able student leaders while he

was still in his college. At 17, he became the secretary for students association. He

gained vast experience in leading the students towards freedom struggle by

motivating and encouraging them. The experience of serving as the secretary of

the association helped him immensely in his later leadership responsibilities.

The All India Congress session was held in Madras in 1927, under the

presidentship of K. Ansari. Kengal Hanumanthaiah put forward the views of the

29 Ibid, p. 8.

86

students in the session.30 Participation in the Congress session further motivated

him to fight for freedom against the imperial power. In fact, it was after this

session that Kengal Hanumanthaiah began to use Khadi clothes under the

influence of Mahatma Gandhi symbolising his love for the country.31

The arrival of Simon Commission to India in the early 1928 witnessed a

great political furor demonstrated through protests, strikes and black welcome to

the Commission. Sir John Simon, who led the commission, with seven other

members, put forward proposals to study constitutional reforms. The people of

India clamoured for revision of the diarchy form of government. The protests

spread all over India. When the Simon Commission arrived in Bombay, it was

greeted with black flags. The slogan “Simon Go Back” was echoed all over India.

In Bangalore, the youth wing of the Congress under the leadership of

Kengal Hanumanthaiah led the protest successfully against the Simon

Commission.32 The success of the protest helped Kengal Hanumanthaiah to be

recognized as a leader and started assuming larger social role, in terms of

becoming political leader. He was not content to remain as a student leader. His

style of leadership drastically changed that was reflected in his active involvement

in Shivapura Salt Sathyagraha.

Shivapura Salt Sathyagraha, which happened in 1938, attracted the

attention of the entire nation. Kengal Hanumanthaiah enthusiastically engaged

himself in the movement.33 In fact, it has been rightly said that this episode served

as a launching pad for Kengal Hanumanthaiah to become a mass leader in later

30 Venkappa Gowda Konandur, op.cit., p. 16. 31 Ibid, p. 18. 32 Ibid, p. 19. 33 D. Lingaiah, Sathyagrahigala Sandharshana, op.cit., p. 4.

87

years.34 Hence, it is pertinent to elaborate this episode especially with reference to

the role that Kengal Hanumanthaiah played during the agitation.

(ii) Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s Role In The Shivapura Dvaja Sathyagraha

In the beginning of twenties and in mid thirties, Mysore Congress party

was generally perceived to be relatively weak in executing its role in the freedom

movement in comparison with other neighbouring areas, which were directly ruled

by the British.35 Princely Mysore was viewed as a well administered regime

therefore, did not contribute much to the freedom movement. In fact, leaders like

Mahatma Gandhi too had the high opinion that princely states were ruled well;

therefore, he compared the princely regime with the Ram Rajya. This affected the

working of Congress organization in these areas as it was deprived of mass

support which was foundation for building its strength. Kengal Hanumanthaiah

voiced his opinion regarding this during one of his interview.36 The Mysore

Congress leaders were earnestly looking for opportunities to consolidate the

Congress party so as to develop it into a mass movement. Sathyagraha that was

organized in Shivapura, located in Mandya District, provided such an opportunity

to the Mysore Congress to mobilize the people for freedom movement.

Records show that even Mahatma Gandhi was not confident about

launching this sathyagraha, since he was not too sure of the success this

sathyagraha.37 Nevertheless, great Congress leaders like T. Siddalingayya

convinced Gandhi about the importance of the movement and the need for

34 The Shivapura flag sathyagraha was an essentially mass movement. Kengal Hanumanthaiah was an

active participant in the movement which helped him to establish a foot-hold in state politics, a point narrated by many of the respondents during the field work.

35 This is evident from the conversation Kengal Hanumanthaiah had with D. Lingaiah, Sathyagrahigala Sandharshana, Dinakara Prakashana, Bangalore, 1998, p. 11.

36 Ibid, p. 10. 37 Ibid, p. 11.

88

converting the congress organization into a mass organization to create awareness

among the people and send a message to the British rulers. The selection of

Shivapura had certain vantage points like people were more politically conscious

and even radical at times. Mahatma Gandhi consented to the plan of action with

the condition of conducting sathyagraha in a peaceful and non-violent manner.38

The main objective of the sathyagrahis was to mobilise people to conduct congress

session in Shivapura and to hoist Indian and Provincial flag as symbolic

expression to the support of freedom struggle against the British Raj.

As expected, the Princely regime of Mysore was indifferent to the

sathyagraha and did not render any support to conduct the sathyagraha. Mahatma

Gandhi sent a letter to the Maharaja through the Congress leader Siddalingayya to

garner support for the conduct of sathyagraha. However, the princely authorities

did not respond and demonstrated apathy towards freedom movement.39 Further,

they even tried to demoralize the agitation through the Diwan’s order for shoot at

sight. Thus, the British had a greater control over the princely state who opposed

the satyagraha which conducted against the British. Sathyagraha was methodically

planned to ensure that no untoward incidents happen. Kengal Hanumanthaiah, in

one of his conversations, said that volunteers were trained mainly to maintain

discipline and non-violence.40

Prior to the day of sathyagraha, a huge procession was organised in the

evening. Villagers from all over the Mandya district came with decorated bullocks

and responded to the call of sathyagraha with enthusiasm as seen from the sea of

humanity, which participated in the procession. The crowd was incredibly well 38 Ibid, p. 11. 39 Ibid, p. 12. 40 Ibid, p. 18.

89

organized that not even one police was seen during the conduct of the procession.

It was said that those who assembled in the night did not care for food and waited

till the morning of the next day for the sathyagraha to start.41

On the day of the sathyagraha, the congress session started at 8 a.m. in

the morning, fully aware of the fact that Section 144 was imposed. Around

600 reserve police were positioned to maintain law and order situation. Any

violation of law and order situation would have provoked the police to fire. The

number of people who participated in the sathyagraha were more than 50,000

covering about 14 to 15 acres of land, which was beyond the expected number.42

As noted earlier, the princely authorities were interested in subverting the

movement and they issued shoot at sight orders in case of public disturbance.

However, the District Magistrate and the Reserve Police were not interested in

police firing; instead, they opted for arresting.

The crowd maintained perfect discipline, and they were very particular in

not inciting violence. The platform was constructed in the main ground. Before the

huge gathering, the then congress president, T. Siddalingayya, climbed the

platform at the scheduled time. When he was about to hoist the flag he was

arrested; however, his task was completed by Kengal Hanumanthaiah and K. Jois.

The two flags that fluttered symbolised the crave for freedom from the imperial

power. The important political leaders were then arrested and while being

arrested, T. Siddalingayya gave a brief speech thanking the crowd for maintaining

discipline.

41 Ibid, p. 12. 42 Ibid, p. 14.

90

The entire episode was conducted in a non-violent manner, which was

attributed as its main success. The credit obviously goes to the congress political

leaders, volunteers and masses. Kengal Hanumanthaiah was involved for the first

time in leading such mass movement, and this gave him ample political

experience, especially in mass political mobilisation. He learnt that there was

necessity to mobilise the masses, especially at the grass roots level, to emerge as a

successful political leader.

Kengal Hanumanthaiah in one of his interviews said that the Shivapura

flag sathyagraha should not be understood in a narrow context, i.e., but should be

viewed with reference to fulfillment of certain political objectives.43 It had on the

other hand the larger goal of involving all segments of rural masses especially the

poor and the underprivileged. It is in this context that he strongly attacked the

Chaturvarna-based caste system. According to him only the upper strata were

primary participants in the operation of the political process. It was necessary to

make it broad based to include all social and political class.

3.4 DEMOCRATIC AND SECULAR ASPECTS OF KENGAL

HANUMANTHAIAH’S LEADERSHIP

One of the remarkable aspects of Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s leadership

refers to the broad outlook he developed in perceiving social issues. He was

truly secular in character and thinking. Bjorn Hettne wrote vividly that

Kengal Hanumanthaiah strongly disapproved of anybody describing him as a

“Vokkaliga leader”. Hettne further writes that Kengal Hanumanthaiah “conceived

43 Ibid, p. 22.

91

his own leadership as one based on principles in contrast to the later communal

leaders”.44

In the late 20s and early 30s two main political organisations were

predominant in old Mysore area – Congress and Praja Party. Congress was

perceived as an organisation that embraced all sections of society, while the latter

was essentially a regional party that represented the interests of certain non-

Brahmin sections. Many close associates of Kengal Hanumanthaiah (one among

them was Chengal Raya Reddy) requested him to join the Praja Party. He rejected

their offer as he believed that Praja Party represented the sectarian interests.45 In

fact Kengal Hanumanthaiah in one of his conversations recounted that he often

attended Praja Party meetings but never thought of joining it. The main reason

behind joining Mysore Congress was that it was secular in character and was

involved in the freedom movement and had high ideals set before it.

Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s secular leadership had manifested itself during

his involvement in the state unification movement. Suffice to say here that Kengal

Hanumanthaiah totally disapproved going along with anti-unification proponents

who largely belonged to his own community.46 This even cost him the Chief

Ministership which he gracefully accepted during that time. Thus, when it came to

choosing between ideals and personal interests, he never compromised and

maintained his secular credentials throughout his political life.

44 Bjorn Hettne had a detailed interview with Kengal Hanumanthaiah. For details, see Bjorn Hettne,

The political economy of Indirect rule, Ambika Publications, New Delhi, 1977, p. 355. 45 D. Lingaiah, Sathyagrahigala Sandharshana, op.cit., p. 6. 46 The vokkaligas who were dominant in old Mysore region right from the beginning were opposed to

the unification move. Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s open stand in favour of unification move cost him to leave chief ministership.

92

Another dimension characterising Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s nature of

leadership was that he had mass following mainly because he was a popular

leader. His popularity grew due to many reasons. He was a firm believer in

democratic principles and his speeches were attested his courage and

straightforwardness. More importantly, he represented the interests of the poor and

the underprivileged. K.T. Bhashyam once told Kengal Hanumanthaiah “despite

our sustained struggle we could not become mass-leaders, but because of your

powerful speeches and uncompromising boldness and courage, you have become a

mass leader within a short time”.47

Great political leaders like K.C. Reddy recognized the leadership qualities

of Kengal Hanumanthaiah and entrusted the leadership to him when they were in

jail. In 1939, a mass meeting was held at K.G.F. to condemn the police firing that

took place at Vidurashwatha, a place near Kolar Gold Fields (KGF). National and

state level congress leaders strongly protested the firing. The majority of congress

leaders who attended the meeting were arrested. In such a context, K.C. Reddy

wrote a letter to Kengal Hanumanthaiah from jail stating that “You are the only

leader who has been left outside the jail. Thus, in view of the national interest you

have to assume the responsibility of taking over the leadership”.48 Kengal

Hanumanthaiah promptly responded to the call and led the political struggle. This

amply demonstrates that state congress leaders had enormous confidence in

Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s leadership capabilities.

47 Prathibavantha Samsadhiya Patugala Badhuku Baraha Malike Kengal Hanumanthaiah, op.cit., p. 5. 48 Ibid, p. 6.

93

3.5 REVOLT TOWARDS AUTOCRATIC RULE OF PRINCELY STATE

Kengal Hanumanthaiah was leader with courage who did not vince on

criticism or opposition. He represented himself to be frank and outspoken person

and was fearless in attacking the princely autocracy, even at the cost of inviting

criticism from others.49 He never compromised his position with the ruling

establishment. He was convinced from the beginning that the latter represented

anti-democratic governance. Kengal Hanumanthaiah did not have a high opinion

about the princely authorities. The then Diwan of Mysore, Mirza Ismail, once

offered him a critical post of Munisiff in the princely administration to appease

him and discourage him from joining the Congress movement and called Congress

leaders as cowards.50 Kengal Hanumanthaiah was highly offended by this remark

and not only rejected the Diwan’s offer but hit back by saying that “I will not be a

Munisiff, but I will appoint Munisiffs”.51 This incident demonstrates his courage

and boldness with which he dealt with his opponents. He displayed the same

leadership style, throughout his political activities in the years that ensued.

At a time when princely rule was respected because of its benevolent

historical past and when political leaders were very cautious not to criticise the

princely regimes, Kengal Hanumanthaiah showed extraordinary courage in

dealing with them. He was open and frank and spoke with conviction against the

royal family at several political platforms. In one of the incidents of communal

disturbances popularly known as Abbas Khan episode, Kengal Hanumanthaiah

openly attacked the Diwan of Mysore, Mirza Ismail, for taking sides in favor of

49

James Manor, Political change in an Indian state Mysore 1914-1955, Manohar Book Service, New Delhi, 1977, p. 172.

50 Prathibavantha Samsadhiya Patugala Badhuku Baraha Malike Kengal Hanumanthaiah, op.cit., p. 11.

51 Ibid, p. 4.

94

Muslims, which brought the discord among the two communities.52 Further, in one

of the meetings organized by Praja party, he advised the party to pass a resolution

that the tenure of Diwan should not exceed more than 5 years, which indirectly

meant that Diwan Mirza Ismail should retire, since his tenure has already

exceeded more than 10 years.53

In a public rally, Kengal Hanumanthaiah courageously said that

Maharaja’s body had developed but not his mind.54 On another occasion in a

speech before a huge audience, Kengal Hanumanthaiah openly questioned the

need for maintain the Maharaja at such a huge cost. He had a civil list in which

the expenditure incurred towards maintenance of princely regimes all over the

world was mentioned. He stated that even in England, so much money was not

being spent, whereas we were spending about 30 lakhs on princely regime, which

was the highest cost among all in the world. He argued that the same money

could be spent for people’s welfare and development.55

The above incidents clearly demonstrate Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s

frankness and boldness, which were in fact, distinguishing features of his

leadership.

3.6 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MYSORE CHALO MOVEMENT

Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s patriotic fervor could be traced back to his

student days. At every stage of his life, he involved in freedom struggle at

different scales by participating in protests, agitations, and so on. His penchant for

democratic rule encouraged him to participate in such activities. When India

52 D. Lingaiah, Sathyagrahigala Sandharshana, Dinakara Prakashana, Bangalore, 1998, p. 6. 53 Ibid, p. 4. 54

James Manor, Political change in an Indian state Mysore 1914-1955, Manohar Book Service, New Delhi, 1977, p. 172.

55 Venkappa Gowda Konandur, Nava Mysore Shilpi, Yashasvi Prakashana, Bangalore, 1985, p. 48.

95

gained independence, most parts of Mysore regime was under the princely

authority. Maharaja refused to oblige to join as part of India. This inevitably

resulted in protest against autocracy. Congress leaders initiated a movement called

Mysore Chalo on September 1, 1947 in a meeting.56 This movement gained the

support of people as they were already eagerly waiting for a radical change in the

state. The movement was spearheaded by K.C. Reddy while other congress leaders

strongly supported him for the success.57

Kengal Hanumanthaiah also played an active role in the movement and

strived hard for the democratic stability. He was expected to prepare a report on

his planning and how he would manage the movement within the given time

frame. He continuously derided King’s rule and Diwan administration using

caustic words. The movement continued up to 37 days but he was unweary and

often addressed people to bring about a change in their mindset to expect political

transformation in the state. To increase common man’s knowledge he wrote

several articles that would inspire the people. While distributing pamphlets which

were considered as against the princely regime, he was arrested on September 11,

1947. His writings and speeches had profound effect on the people, who joined the

movement. The movement took serious turn that resulted in the setting up of

democratic state. This movement was later on emulated by other neighboring

districts too.58

Kengal Hanumanthaiah spent his time in Kolar productively by inspiring

those who were imprisoned along with him for struggling against the princely rule.

56 Rashtra Ratna Kengal Hanumanthaiah Jeevana Gathe, a serial published in Karmaveera magazine,

(Kannada), Samyukta Karnataka Press, Bangalore, 8.3.2009, p. 16. 57 Palace chalo movement was started to end the autocratic rule of Mysore kings. 58 Kengal Hanumanthaiah wanted to create awareness among mass, a point narrated by many of

freedom fighters to the questionnaire.

96

He wrote many articles while he was in jail. Finally, on October 26, 1947, he

released from the jail and he continued to play a vital role regular in politics.

Mysore Chalo movement is considered as important in getting political power to

the state. Ultimately, on October 20, 1947, democratic rule came into existence

with K.C. Reddy on the helm and the Maharaja of Mysore served as a Rajpramukh

till 1947. The effort and support of the leaders has remained eternally in the

history of Karnataka politics.

3.7 CONCERN TOWARDS MINORITIES

On October 4, 1946, a meeting was organized to discuss the Hindu-Muslim

issue, and Kengal Hanumanthaiah as a congress leader made a forceful speech.

The speech highlighted the problem between Hindus and Muslims and stressed on

the importance of solving it by the two communities themselves and any third

party should not be involved in the resolution of the conflict.59 He further pointed

out that the decision taken to extend additional benefits to the Muslim members

would only accelerate the Hindu-Muslim divide. This divide can only be bridged

through mutual trust established between the communities. Kengal Hanumanthaiah

emphasized the viewing of the social disputes with a long-term perspectives than

be narrow minded. He maintained that measures aimed at gaining immediate to

short-term benefits, would harm the social fabric or social harmony in the state.

59

Prathibavantha Samsadhiya Patugala Badhuku Baraha Malike Kengal Hanumanthaiah, op.cit., p. 53.

97

3.8 KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH’S ROLE IN UNIFICATION OF

KARNATAKA

(i) General Background Of Karnataka Unification

Karnataka is rich with natural resources and unique in art and culture.

Several dynasties including the Gangas, Kadambas, Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas and

Vijayanagara Empires ruled Karnataka. After the fall of Vijayanagara Empire,

Karnataka was split into different parts and distributed amongst various divisions.

During the time of Hyder Ali and Tippu, Karnataka consolidated its power, but for

a short time.60

After India’s independence, Mysore was freed from princely rule.

However, regions that had majority of Kannada speaking people were divided

among Bombay presidency, Madras presidency and Hyderabad provinces. The

region which came under Mysore government was led by the Wodeyars of

Mysore. Dissension among the people was visible as there were partial treatment

of the Kannada speaking people which came under the provinces other than

Mysore. These people were considered as minorities in all these provinces.

Kannada speaking people felt the need for being included with Mysore. For

administrative convenience, the British had divided Karnataka into 19 regions.

Kannada literature flourished especially in the 18th and 19th centuries when the

regions of Karnataka remained unified.61 Many Kannada books, poems, literature

and songs were written which developed the knowledge of the common man.

The demand for unification existed even in the last century. The literature

points to the process of unification that started from the north part of Karnataka.

60 K.S. Bhagawan, Kengalara Bashanagalu, Kannada and Culture Department, Bangalore, 2006, p. 8. 61 Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka, op.cit., p. 309.

98

Unification took a separate dimension when Kannada Sahithya Parishad was

established in 1918.

Several state level political conferences that were held in Dharwad in 1920

and later in 1924 and Belgaum highlighted the importance of unification. These

conferences throw light on the importance and the penchant attached to the need

for unification. A report that rationalized the demand was brought out by Nehru

committee in 1928.62 Discontent brewed among the people resulting in widespread

outcry for unification, yet the actual unification could not be obtained.

Independence to the country brought into fore the need and expectation

for unification. The constituent assembly passed a resolution to join the Kannada

speaking neighboring regions with Mysore. Later in 1948, Linguistic Provinces

Committee set up under the chairmanship of S.K. Dhar could not succeed. The

committee believed that due to the turbulent situations that occurred in the other

parts of India immediately after the independence could affect harmony of the

states. Similarly, J.V.P. Committee too did not bring forth concrete steps to

support the cause.

Apart from these developments the most significant ray of hope came in

the form of Indian constitution, though the problem was not solved.63 In spite of all

these developments, Karnataka Ekikarana Paksha fought bravely for the

unification. Congress party made unification as part of election manifesto, which

promised that if voted to power, it would work towards unification. As a result

Congress party got the majority and formed the government. According to justice

Vanchu committee recommendation, Andhra state was unified and the government

62 Nehru Committee in its report did not give much concern about unification, p. 312. 63 A point narrated from many respondents at the time of Interview.

99

of India gave a choice regarding the inclusion of Bellary district to Mysore.

Kengal Hanumanthaiah traveled to the different parts of the state including Bellary

and heard the opinion of the people.64 The people articulated their concerns to a

great extent to Kengal Hanumanthaiah. In a meeting that was conducted in

Navalnagar, Andhra Pradesh, Kengal Hanumanthaiah attended in the capacity of

Chief Minister and declared that, “we are almost ready to go for unification.” It is

assumed that this declaration provoked the Central Government to send States

Reorganization Commission headed by Fazal Ali and vice presidents S.M. Khunjru

and K.M. Phanikar. The report submitted by the committee in 1956 resulted in

getting consent from Central Government. Karnataka was unified on 1st November

1956.65

Unification was a task that was supported by political parties, non-political

organizations, individuals, literary stalwarts and newspapers. In addition to

political parties, several non-political organizations, such as Karnataka Ekikarana

Sabha, Hindustan Sevadala, Karnataka Ekikarana Samithi and Kannada

Bhashodjivini Sabhe, etc., also took active part in unification process. Aluru

Venkata Rao, Kadapa Raghavendra Rao and Uylagola Narayana Rao and others

were some of the great leaders who worked tirelessly for unification. Some of the

literary stalwarts like Kuvempu, B.M. Shri, Goruru Ramaswami Iyengar and many

more supported the cause through their literary works. The only mass media

that existed during those times was newspapers and Kannada weekly magazines

like Sudha, Tharanga and Jai Karnataka and newspapers like Prajavani and

64 K.S. Bhagawan, Kengalara Bashanagalu, Kannada and Culture department, Bangalore, 2006, p. 10. 65 Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka, op.cit., p. 314.

100

Vijaya Karnataka voiced their opinion to create awareness among the public. All

the above factors were behind the success of the Karnataka unification.

(ii) Controversy

Before and after independence, unification was always considered a

controversial issue. Majority opinion that was held in the Old Mysore area was

opposed to the merger. It was argued that Mysore being a landlocked region

without coastal lines was well administered. Merger of the other Kannada

speaking areas with the Mysore region would affect administration. The next

argument was that Mysore being an economically developed region would become

financially weak if other regions were brought under Mysore. Finally, there was a

fear for communal disturbances, if unification takes place.66

(iii) Kengal Hanumanthaiah’s Stand

Kengal Hanumanthaiah did not agree with the arguments put forward

against the unification. He was a strong proponent for merger of other Kannada

speaking areas with old Mysore. He had a broader perspective in perceiving the

issue in terms of cultural identity through linguistic homogeneity.67

Before 1946, the formation of Karnataka meant the merger of Kannada

areas of British India. The Karnataka unification convention was held in

Davanagere in 1946. A large number of people from Mysore for the first time

attended the convention. Kengal Hanumanthaiah and H.C. Dasappa attended the

session. The convention decided in favour of uniting the Kannada areas of British

India separately (i.e., not with Mysore). However, Kengal Hanumanthaiah was not

in favor of such a resolution hence he protested against it. He along with 66 Diwakar R.R., Karnataka through the ages, Literary and Cultural Development, Bangalore, 1968,

p. 944. 67 Ibid, p. 945.

101

H.C. Dasappa expressed the view that Karnataka should be merged with Mysore.

They emphatically pleaded that formation of Karnataka without Mysore was

meaningless.68 In 1949, while speaking about the objectives of the resolution in

the state constituent assembly, Kengal Hanumanthaiah referred to the provision in

Mysore constitution for integrating all adjoining Kannada speaking areas with

Mysore.69

The secular credentials of Kengal Hanumanthaiah again manifested itself

when he took an uncompromising stand on merger issue, despite his own men

being opposed to the pro-merger issue. As noted earlier, the predominant opinion

held in old Mysore area was not in favour of merging old Mysore. In fact, the

opponents of pro-merger issue pleaded for two Karnataka. The most important

leaders who held this opinion were H.K. Veeranna Gowda, V. Venkatappa,

Huchamasti Gowda, K.V. Shankare Gowda, P.N. Javarappa Gowda and M.P.L.

Sastry, etc.70 These prominent men opposed the formation of one Karnataka.

However, Kengal Hanumanthaiah did not agree with them, as he had developed a

strong conviction in favour of the state unification.

The congress session held at Navalnagar in Hyderabad in 1953, resolved

not to form any more linguistic states other than Andhra Pradesh. Kengal

Hanumanthaiah who attended the congress session opposed the resolution and

advocated the formation of linguistic states.71 Diwakar wrote that Kengal

Hanumanthaiah’s forthright statement cleared the misunderstanding that Mysore

68 Ibid, p. 112. 69 Veerathappa K, Kengal Hanumanthaiah and the formation of Karnataka, Readings in modern

history of Mysore, S. Chand and Company Limited, New Delhi, 1955, p. 112. 70 Ibid, p. 112. 71 Ibid, p. 114.

102

was opposed to the formation of Karnataka.72 Kengal Hanumanthaiah further

undertook extensive tours in north Karnataka. He was greeted with unprecedented

and spontaneous welcome wherever he visited. He was even surprised by the

demonstration of public sentiment over the formation of Karnataka.73

The merger of two-third of Bellary in Mysore on the eve of formation of a

separate Andhra state, on October 1, 1953, on linguistic basis gave a major thrust

to the state unification movement. Addressing about 30,000 people in Bellary,

Kengal Hanumanthaiah said that Bellary’s merger is the beginning of Karnataka

unification.74

On December 22, 1953, Pandit Nehru issued a proclamation supporting the

idea of linguistic states. The state reorganization committee was appointed with

Fazal Ali as its chairman. The Congress party and the government in Mysore state

refused to cooperate with the state Reorganisation Commission. Instead, the

government appointed a fact-finding commission. The commission concluded that

the other Karnataka areas were underdeveloped and were likely to have financial

deficit. Kengal Hanumanthaiah tried to convince his opponents about the

prospects of future Karnataka. Further, he expressed the view that on the whole,

the report disappointed him.75

As noted earlier, there was a division of opinion between pro-merger and

anti-merger groups over unification movement. This split was also reflected

within the state Congress party. There had been equal number of state

congressmen who supported and opposed the merger of other Karnataka areas

72 Ibid, p. 112. 73 Diwakar R.R., Karnataka through the ages, op.cit. , p. 954. 74 Ibid, p. 957. 75 Ibid, p. 16.

103

with Mysore. The fact finding committee acquainted itself with this division of

opinion as it was feared that the state’s economy would suffer along with fears of

the domination of one community in the administration.

3.9 THE ROLE OF THE CONGRESS HIGH-COMMAND

Though there had been stiff resistance to the state unification, there was an

important development, which excited the proponents of the merger issue. The

report of the State Reorganization Committee (SRC) was published on October

10th 1955, which recommended the formation of Karnataka with Mysore. The

Congress Working Committee appointed the sub-committee for the creation of

Karnataka. The sub-committee accepted State Reorganization Commission’s

recommendations for the creation of Karnataka in the best interests of the people

of Mysore and the country as a whole.76 This resolution was communicated to

Mysore Congress leaders, who were forced to accept this opinion despite the

differences that surfaced within Mysore Congress party.

The sub-committee resolution was in tune with the thought process of

Kengal Hanumanthaiah and his efforts for obtaining unification goal. He pleaded

with the people of Mysore to accept the report unanimously. He moved the

resolution of SRC report in the legislative assembly and the speech he delivered

enlightened everybody in the House, which deserves to be quoted here.

He said; “Never before in the history of the state have we faced such

developments of far reaching character. In fact after the state of Mysore was

entrusted to the present ruling family in 1799, the question of expanding its

territories has never arisen though several attempts were made by the previous

76

Veerathappa K, Kengal Hanumanthaiah and the formation of Karnataka, Readings in modern history of Mysore, S. Chand and Company Limited, New Delhi, 1955, p. 113.

104

administrators”.77 “The most respected of our Diwans who is happily still with us,

Dr. M. Visveswarayya tried to get Batkal harbour for us. With all his sincerity,

ability, and in spite of his best efforts he was not successful. Look at our fortune

today! We not only get small adjoining territories such as Coorg and Kollegal, but

also vast territories from the states of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras. With

regard to the south-coast, we wanted only Batkal but we are getting 200 miles of

seacoast. If we have the necessary resources, we can have not merely one harbour

but half-a-dozen first-rate harbours. If this is not welcome to us, what else

could be”.

“After the promulgation of the most democratic constitution the people

have become sovereign. It is this sovereign power vested in the people that are

conferring. If it were only the people of Mysore it would never have been possible

to have large areas from the state of Bombay, the state of Hyderabad and the state

of Madras. Even if all of us here and in the other House unanimously wanted these

territories, it would still be impossible for us to get them. It is the sovereign will of

the people of India – 36 crores of them – that is behind this redistribution of

territories between state and state. It is not strictly as the people of Mysore that we

are sitting here to consider this recommendation of States Reorganisation

Commission, but at the same time, we cannot forget how it affects us. We cannot

also forget how in the larger context of things, these proposals when implemented

work themselves out. Therefore in a dual capacity, as the people of the state of

Mysore, for the time being and in our higher capacity as Indian responsible for the

administration and well being of the whole of India, we have to consider this

77 Proceedings of the Mysore legislative assembly, November 16, 1955, pp. 32-33.

105

question”. Reacting to the criticism, “Let us not hold any one in particular, nor any

class, or any community responsible for this movement. We have to note that this

idea originated in the minds of our revered leaders about half-century ago. It

originated with purest of motives, with the sole idea of making this country well

administered. I am with the people I want the will of the people to prevail. It is not

the will of any particular individual or of one particular party that I am having in

mind when I am sponsoring this proposition. According to States Reorganisation

Commission, there are 90 lakhs people who with one voice unanimously and very

sincerely want to make one administrative unit for themselves and people of

Mysore. Neither myself nor any minister is responsible for these proposals and

I do not deserve either compliments or criticisms in this behalf”. In the larger

interests of the nation and the State he appealed with folded hands “to welcome

unanimously these 90 lakhs of people with the same affection and love as they did

in case of people of Bellary who chose to live with us”.

This was one among the many illuminating speeches made by Kengal

Hanumanthaiah as the leader of the House. J.M. Imam complimented him and

held that Kengal Hanumanthaiah was guided by higher national ideals and

patriotic motives and had shown the light to those people who were groping in

darkness regarding the question.78 Kengal Hanumanthaiah suggested the retention

of the name “Mysore” for the new state to appease the opponents. After prolonged

debate over the issue, the Mysore Congress Committee unanimously adopted the

resolution for the formation of Karnataka. It is recorded that some 57 members

voted for the resolution, while 35 members gave their names as conscientious

78 Proceedings of Mysore legislative council on state reorganization committee report, 1955, p. 573.

106

objections.79 Finally, after eight long days of full-length debate, the Mysore

legislature approved the motion for the formation of Karnataka and decided

further to retain the name “Mysore” to preserve its composite character.

As a leader of the state Congress party and as the Chief Minister of the

state, Kengal Hanumanthaiah played a historic role in the state unification

movement. Since the majority of the Vokkaliga legislators were unhappy with

Kengal Hanumanthaiah, he eventually lost the chief ministership of the state. He

had, however, the satisfaction that he sacrificed the position to uphold the

convictions he believed in. Later, the Union Government appointed Fazal Ali

Committee that submitted a report in 1956. Meanwhile as Chief Minister of

Mysore, Kengal Hanumanthaiah traveled throughout the state reaching out to

people for their opinion. He successfully got the consent of assembly members,

who reluctantly passed the bill on State Re-Organization Act for Mysore state.

Karnataka came to be formed on November 1, 1956. Later it was renamed as

“Karnataka” under Devaraja Urs leadership.

In addition to his role in the freedom struggle and unification of Karnataka,

Kengal Hanumanthaiah being a born leader embraced politics as his profession.

All the positions that he held in politics honed his skills as a leader and developed

administrative acumen. He was strongly rooted in his principles and values that

made him the leader with conviction.

79

Prathibavantha Samsadhiya Patugala Badhuku Baraha Malike Kengal Hanumanthaiah, op.cit., p. 18.