CHAPTER IV

LINGUISTIC TUSSLES IN KASARAGOD

The present Kasaragod district of the State of Kerala prior to 1 November

1956, formed the southern taluk of South Kanara district of Madras State. The
taluk existed then as two distinct parts, Kasaragod and Hosdurg. The northern
portion of the taluk, Kasaragod, was inhabited predominantly by Kannada
speaking people while the southern portion Hosdurg was predominantly a
Malayalam speaking area. The two portions were distinct units and separated by a
natural boundary denoted by the Chandragiri and Payaswini Rivers and the Adoor
Hill Ranges,' The whole area was a part of Bekal taluk in South Kanara district of
Bombay Presidency till 1882. When Bekal taluk was included in the Madras
Presidency, Kasaragod taluk came into being on 16 April 1882.^ Being, an
adjoining taluk of Malabar district, the Malayalees of Malabar and Kasaragod
wished to remain as a cohesive unit. The Malayalees advocated merging the
Kasaragod taluk with Malabar and not with South Kanara. Their demand was not
considered. From time to time, various resolutions were passed by the Malayalee
and the Kannadiga local organizations and a number of movements were
organized. Thus, it can be said that the history of the problems and struggles of
linguistic groups of the region began from the year 1882 onwards.^

' Adoor K. K. Ramachandran Nair, Kerala State Gazetteer, Vol. 1, Gazetteer of India,
Government of Kerala, 1986, p. 35.
^ District Handbooks ofKerala, Kasaragod, Government of Kerala, 2003, p. 9.
^Ibid
 115

In 1913, the Malayalees held a conference at Calicut and accepted a

resolution requesting the Government to merge Kasaragod with Malabar."* In the
same year, Vengayil Kunhiraman Nayanar moved a resolution on the floor of the
Madras Governor's Council demanding the merging of Kasaragod taluk with
Malabar district. However, it was withdrawn because of the stiff opposition of the
members from Kamataka.^ Meanwhile, a Kannadiga lawyer of Kasaragod,
managed to get the signatures of prominent Malayalees including the senior raja of
Nileshwar to a memorandum, stating that they preferred to remain in South
Kanara. As a result, the initial attempt to merge Kasaragod with Malabar was
thwarted.^ Yet the work for the integration of Kasaragod with Malabar, the
Kasaragod Malabar Amalgamation Committee (K M A C) was constituted in the
same year. The Committee organized agitations in 1913 and 1928 for
amalgamating Kasaragod with Malabar. Both attempts could not make any
headway.^ In 1927, a political convention held at Kozhikode, passed a resolution
stressing on the demand. In the same year, an organization titled Malayalee Seva
Q

Sangam (M S S) was constituted. At this time, the Movement for the creation of a
United Kamataka was also strengthening.^
In 1937, the South Kanara D C C of the Kamataka Pradesh Congress
Committee (Kamataka P C C) was dominated by the Kannadigas. The attempts of
K P C C to include the taluk in the Malayalee dominated area made no resuhs.'°

"* Maria John, B., Studies in Tamil History, Nagercoil, 2005, p. 104.
' District Handbooks ofKerala, Kasaragod, p. 8.
^ Maria John, B., Studies in Tamil History, p. 104.
^ LetterfromPresident, K P C C, Kanhangad to the A I C C Secretary, on 7 October 1937, All
India Congress Committee Papers, (hereafter referred as A IC C Papers), File No. P/ 24/ 1937.
* District Handbooks ofKerala, Kasaragod, p. 9.
' Maria John, B., Studies in Tamil History, pp. 104, 105.
'" A I C C Papers, File No. 64/1938, p. 13.
 116

When the Congress units of Kerala began recruiting members to the Congress
Party in Kasaragod, there arose a dispute between the Kanarees and Malayalees.''
It means before the reorganization of States, the K P C C could not exercise
jurisdiction over the portion north of Chandragiri River.'^ Meantime, the
Kannadigas enjoyed the benefits that were denied to the Malayalees. They held
^the Kannada Sahithya Parishat' (Kannada S P) and Karnataka Ekikarana
Conference (K E C) in Kasaragod in \9AlP

At the same time, the United Kerala Conference held at Trissur on 26 and 27
April 1947 passed the resolution that the United Kerala should consist of the areas
from Kasaragod to Cape Comerin.''* The Conferences held in the succeeding
years, repeated the same.'^ In 1948, the Linguistic Province Commission of 1948
submitted its Report. It proposed that Kasaragod should be a part of Kerala State
when the States were reorganized.'^ It created resentment among the leaders of
United Karnataka.

Dissents and protests of the Kannadigas were mobilized and channelized

through an organization called All Karnataka Ekikarana Parishad (A K E P),
which was set up in Kasaragod in 1948 when the Dar Commission Report was
published. The A K E P demanded that when Karnataka State would be formed

" Maria John, B., Studies in Tamil History, pp. 106, 107.
'^ Madras Legislative Proceedings, 23 November 1955, Vol. XXXVI, p. 301.
'^ Mysore-Kerala Boundary Dispute., Eloquent Facts about Kasaragod, Government of Mysore,
Bangalore, 1968, p. 3.
'^ Stanley John, C , loc. cit, pp. 237-238. The conventions like Natturajya Praja Sammelanam,
All Kerala Kudiyan meeting, the political meetings of Payyannur (1928), Vadeikara (1931) and
Calicut (1935) expressed their views and passed resolutions for the formation of a Malayalam
speaking State. Paslithil, A., In the Making of A ikya Kerala: tiie Politics of Language, South
Indian History Congress Proceedings, Vol. XXVII, Rajapalayam, 2007, p. 126.
'^ Paslithil, A., loc. cit.
" Dar Commission Report., p. 8.
 117

the whole of erstwhile South Kanara district should be included in it. Various
personalities from Kasaragod participated in the Movement all over Kamataka,
apart from people from different walks of life in Kasaragod taluk. The leaders of
the Movement were Masti Venkatesha Ayyankar, Dr. Sivaram Karanth, Kayyar
Kinchanna Rai, Govinda Pai, M. Umesh Rao, Banugal Siva Rao and B. S.
Kakkillaya. The justifications given for the need of merger were mainly that of
linguistic affinity, geographical unity and economic importance. A number of
resolutions were passed in various meetings of the Association. They organized
many programmes including conferences attended by authoritative members,
presented memorandums to the Government authorities and gave publicity to all
their aspirations with the help of different print media.'^

The appointment of the Dar Commission and J V P Commission and their

suggestion for the formation of Andhra State, and finally its formation, etc., made
affect Kasaragod also. Meanwhile, the Kannadigas and Malayalees respectively
stood for the formation of United Kamataka and United Kerala States.

In 1953, the agitation for Kasaragod found a new vigour from the side of
Malayalees and Kannadigas. On 3 January 1953, in a civic address, a
representation was submitted by Kannada S P to the Rajpramukh of Mysore. The
summary of the representation is given below.

" for centuries in the past, parts of Mysore and

South Kanara have had a common administration. Culturally and
historically we have had close ties We keenly feel that we
in this part of Kamataka and the State of Mysore should have a
common administration

'^ Ameenath Sameena, P. A., Kamataka Movement in Kasaragod, an unpublished Dissertation,

Master of Arts in History, Farook College, Calicut, 2006, p. 33.
 118

We strongly feel that the formation of a United Kamataka

Province with Mysore and Kanara as integral parts of it cannot
and should not be delayed any longer."'*

In a civic address, a memorandum presented by a Council for Kannadigas to

the Chief Minister of Mysore on 7 May 1953, represented as follows:

We have realized that the proper and rightful place

of our District is in the United Kamataka State and that unless a
United Kamataka State with Mysore as its hub, is formed early,
we have no salvation for our problem. We further feel that for a
proper development of Mysore and Kanara the two regions must
form part of the same administration once again.'^

At this time, the clarion cry in different parts of India for linguistic States,
forced the appointment of S R C on 23 December 1953. When the S R C invited
the State's proposal for States formation in early 1954, the Travancore-Cochin
State proposed that the whole of the South Kanara District should be included in
the State of Kerala. A memorandum submitted to the S R C by the Chairman and
members of the Mangalore Municipal Council (M M C) rejected the claim of
Kerala for the South Kanara district. All these years South Kanara was accepted
and treated as part of Kamataka. All the political parties, have included South
Kanara as not of Kerala for their party organizations. This would indicate how the

'' A memorandum presented by the Mangalore Municipal Council in a Civic Address to tiie
Rajpramukh of Mysore, dated 03/ 01/ 1953. Files kept at Kamataka Prathikarana Samithi
Archives Library at Kasaragod. (Hereafter K P S A L Kasaragod)
" A memorandum presented by the Mangalore Municipal Council in a Civic Address to the Chief
Minister of Mysore, on 7 May 1953. K P S A L Kasaragod.
^° S R C Report., p. 1.
^' Ibid., p. 90.
 119

natural and rational grouping should be.^^ It emphatically condemned the move of
Travancore-Cochin to include the District in any set-up other than the Kamataka
State. ^^ The M M C repeatedly, unequivocally and emphatically expressed in its
aimual meetings, its unanimous opinion that a United Kamataka State should be
formed early and that the District of South Kanara should form part of Kamataka
State.''

Following this, the M M C called upon its annual meeting and decided to
meet and submit a memorandum to the S R C. The Memorandum submitted to the
S R C by the Chairman and Members of the M M C at the S R C Camp at
Mangalore on 8 June 1954 says:

The district of South Kanara, but for a few villages in the

southemmost tip of Kasaragod taluk, has been for over 1000 years
mled by Kannada mlers till the British conquest in 1781 and had
nothing to do with the Kerala rulers. Under the British mle, North
Kanara and South Kanara formed one district until 1860. After
1862, North Kanara, which was separated from South Kanara,
was joined to Bombay State. All these years the official language
of the District has been Kannada. The people of this District
whether they speak Kannada, or Tulu or Konkani at home, are all
unanimous that this region should join the Kamataka State. Even
very considerable sections of the people who speak Malayalam at
home are in favour of the district joining with Kamataka State.

^^ A Memorandum submitted to the S R C by the Chairman and Members of the Mangalore

Municipal Council at S R C Camp at Mangalore dated 08/ 06/ 1954, M H A, N A I, New Delhi,
p. 3.
''Ibid.
'* The Minitues o/K P S A L, Annual Report 1955, K P S A L Kasaragod, p. 1.
 120

The mode of dressing, the way of living of the people of Malabar

are the same as those of the people of Mysore and north Kanara.
We have good road communication with Mysore and we have all
our commercial intercourse with the people of Malabar. For
centuries in the past, we had a common administration with parts
of Mysore. Simply an apprehension that Kerala may not be a
viable unit without non-Malayalam areas, and simply for
providing space for settling down (colonizing), in the South
Kanara for the people of the thickly populated Malabar and
Travancore-Cochin State, the District of South Kanara should not
be claimed as part of Kerala State.^^

Meanwhile, for the United Kerala leaders, a proposal was submitted to the S
R C regarding the formation of a West Coast State, extending the area south of
Kanyakumari to north Gokamam. The Mangalore Municipal Council opposed
the proposal to include the District of South Kanara, either in a West Coast State
or in the Kerala State. The Council submitted another memorandum to the S R C ,
which favoured Kamataka as the proper state for the district of South Kanara,
when the States were reorganized.

The S R C seriously considered and studied the memorandums and

suggestions of every party and submitted its Report in 1955. The Commission
opined that there was little justification in Kerala's claim for the whole of the

^' Memorandum submitted to the S R C by the Chairman and Members of the Mangalore
Municipal Council at S R C Camp at Mangalore on 8 June 1954. K P S A L Kasaragod, p. 3.
^^See, SRC Report., p. 91.
" Ibid., In 1948, the Dar Commission opined that, the Kasaragod taluk of South Kanara district in
the geographical contiguous area in which the Malayalam language was largely spoken.
 121

South Kanara District.^* In South Kanara, the northern taluk of Coondupur was
predominantly Kannada whereas the southern taluk of Kasaragod was
predominantly Malayalam speaking. As far as Tulu linguistic group, they
constituted a sufficient number throughout the South Kanara district. Kannada was
the court language of South Kanara. It was not an easy matter to divide these areas
on linguistic basis without taking the wishes of the Tulus.^^ From the side of Tulu
linguistic groups there was absence of proposals, regarding their desire to merge
with Kerala or Kamataka. Yet the Fazl Ali Commission, following the footprints
of the Dar Commission, proposed the Kasaragod taluk of the South Kanara district
to the Kerala State.^°

Meanwhile, the S R C's suggestion regarding Kasaragod taluk was partly

accepted by the United Kamataka leaders in Kasaragod. Accordingly, they
claimed the portions, which lies to the north of the Chandragiri River. Mysore
State opined that, in the portion south of Chandragiri and Payaswani Rivers (ie., in
the present Hosdurg taluk) Malayalam was the predominant language, but at the
same time, the northern part (viz., in the present Kasaragod taluk) was Kannada
speaking and that it should remain with South Kanara and should not be
transferred to Kerala.^'

According to the Kannadiga leaders, the area, loosely referred to as north of

Chandragiri, geographically, economically, culturally and linguistically cannot be

^* S R C Report., p. 90.
^' Dar Commission Report, p. 9.
^" S R C Report., p. 90.
^' Mahajan Report on Kasaragod. Is it really Ex-parte?, Government of Mysore, Bangalore,
January, 1968, pp. 1-2.
 122

distinguished from the rest of South Kanara district.^^ The Malayalam speaking
people formed about seventy-two percentage in the Kasaragod main taluk and
Hosdurg sub taluk taken together and on this ground the S R C decided to detach
Kasaragod taluk from South Canara.^^

The United Kamataka people argued that, "Malayalam language spoken in

Kasaragod taluk was not at all Malayalam but an admixture of regional language,
namely Kannada and the local dialect Tulu with a superficial coating of
Malayalam."^"^

Meanwhile, as a protest against the proposal of transferring Kasaragod to

Kerala by S R C, various associations, political parties, the Mysore Government,
the Madras Government and commons put forward claims that Kasaragod should
be merged with the proposed Kamataka State.

The South Kanara District Board (S K D B) opined, in its annual meeting,

that there was not much difference of opinion as regards the Chandragiri River
being taken as the boundary between the Kannada areas of the South Kanara
District and Southern portion of the District comprising the Hosdurg sub-taluk,
which is inhabited mainly by Malayalam speaking people. The decision at the
meeting was that the whole of Kasaragod taluk excepting Hosdurg sub-taluk (the
present Hosdurg taluk) formed Kannada area. In accordance with the general
principle that in deciding boundaries, the district as a whole should be taken into
consideration, this board pressed the S R C to retain the entire Kasaragod taluk in

^^ Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala

Boundary Disputes, on behalf of the South Kanara District Congress Committee, by its
President, K. K. Shetty, M L C. p. 10.
"Ibid, p. 11.
^ A brief note on Kasaragod, (subject matter of the Mysore-Kerala Border Dispute), submitted to
Hon'ble Members of Parliament by the Public of Kasaragod, p. 8. K P S A L Kasaragod.
 123

the District of South Kanara.^^ But the latter realizing that there was no
justification in agitating for the whole of Kasaragod, they centred their agitation
on the portion north of the river.^^

While the agitations of the Kannadigas were going on, the Kasaragod
Karnataka Prantheekarana Samithi, (K K P S), a parallel organization like A K E
P, was formed in 1955. Its main object was to agitate for the merger of the portion
of the then Kasaragod taluk, lying to the north of the traditional boundary between
Kerala and Tulunad, namely the Adoor Hill ranges and the Chandragiri -
Payaswini River with Kasaragod.^^ It severely criticized the S R C Report. During
the same year, A K E P was merged with K K P S. It strengthened the agitation for
achieving their goal in all constitutional ways.^^

During that time, as a protest against the proposal of the S R C Report,

another organization named 'Kasaragod Karnataka Unification Samithy' (K K U
S) was formed in 1955. The 'Samithy' sent a deputation to the Central
Government, the Mysore Government and the Kerala Government to get the area
north of the river to merge with Mysore State. The State of Mysore also came to
the forefront with claims to the Kasaragod taluk consisting of three firkas to the
north of Chandragiri river excluding eight villages on the southern side of the

^' Proceedings of the urgent meeting of the members of the South Kanara District Board held at
1.45 pm on Monday the 12 September 1955 in the meeting hall of the South Kanara District
Bank Office, Mangalore, K P S A L Kasaragod, p. 1.
^^ Minutes of the Kasaragod Karnataka Unification Samithy, on 12 April 1953.
^^ Memorandum Submitted by U. P. Kunikullaya, before the Commission for Maharashtra-
Mysore- Kerala Border Disputes, p. 1.
^* Interview with B. V. Kakillaya, aged 68, the present Chairman of Karnataka Pranthikarana
Samithy, dated, 29 December 2009, at Karnataka Pranthikarana Samithy Office Kasaragod.
•" File No. 22/ 47/ 56- S R III, Regarding the Communications on the proposal of South Kanara
district of Madras State to the proposed Kerala State, The Resolution Submitted Kasaragod
Karnataka Unification Samithy, M H A, N A I, New Delhi, p. 2.
 124

Chandragiri river. They contended that there was nothing to support the view of
the S R C that, administrative convenience was in favour of Kerala. No references
were made anywhere in the Commission's Report or any circumstances to support
this view. All factors led to the unchallengeable conclusion that from the point of
view of administrative convenience Kasaragod taluk was to be within the district
of South Kanara and connected with Mangalore. In fact, during the period of a
century and a half when it was a part of that district, there was no inconvenience
felt of any type whatsoever.''^

The Kannadigas in fairness to the linguistic preponderance of the

Malayalees to the South of the Chandragiri river also represented before the
Minister for Home Affairs that the Northern part of the composite Kasaragod
taluk, viz., the area lying to the north of the Chandragiri and Payaswini Rivers and
the Adoor Hill Ranges should continue to remain with the South Canara district.
They upheld that in fact Sardar K M Panicker, one of the three members of the S R
C had given a definite assurance to the people of Kasaragod at the Mangalore
sitting of the Commission that the Chandragiri River, which formed the traditional
boundary would be adopted as the boundary between Kerala and Kamataka, and
on that matter there was no need for them to adduce any evidence. They alleged
that, when the report of the S R C came out, to the dismay of the local population
and also of every right-minded person it was discovered that the S R C had
recommended the inclusion of the entire composite taluk of Kasaragod within the
Kerala State on the alleged ground that "administratively it would be more
expedient to join the whole taluk to Kerala than to break it upon linguistic
grounds." There was however nothing to support the view of the S R C that the

''" Firkas means revenue village. Mehr Chand Mahajan, et. al.. Commission on Maharaslitra-
Mysore-Kerala Boundary Disputes, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 1967, p.
181
 125

administrative convenience was in favour of placing it in Kerala. There was no

reference anywhere in the S R C Report to support this. All factors lead to the
unchallengeable conclusion that from the point of view of administrative
convenience the area claimed for merger in Mysore, was to be retained within the
district of South Canara.'*'

K. K. Shetty, the President of the South Kanara District Congress Committee

and M L C of Madras State from Kasaragod constituency, in a Memorandum
submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala
Boundary Disputes of 1967 opined that there was no demand or agitation for the
inclusion of the area north of Chandragiri in Kerala State before the submission of
the S R C Report. The major political parties of India had so long considered
Kasaragod main taluk within the jurisdiction of Kamataka and not of Kerala for
organizational purposes. In the 1952 General Election, the selection of the
Congress candidate for the Kasaragod Assembly Constituency, which comprised
mostly of the area north of Chandragiri, was made on the recommendation of the
Kamataka Pradesh Congress Committee.'*^

The South Kanara District Congress Committee (S K D C C), commended

that 'it came as a bombshell to them when the S R C recommended the inclusion
of the whole of Kasaragod taluk in Kerala.' There was consternation and dismay
in the district, particularly among the local population of the area north of
Chandragiri. It found expression in a spontaneous movement for modification of
the S R C's recommendation and allotting this area to the new Kamataka State.^^

*' A brief note on Kasaragod., pp. 3, 4.

^^ Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala
Boundary Disputes, on behalf of the South Kanara District Congress Committee, by its
President, K. K. Shetty, M L C. p. 1.
''Ibid.
 126

Meanwhile the Kannadigas reacted against the S R C Report in all

constitutional ways. It had its reflections in the Madras Legislative Assembly
when the S R Bill was subjected to discussion. N. N. Suvama, Member of Madras
Legislative Council, indicated his stand:

In this recommendation, I must say, a lot of injustice has

been done to Kasaragod. An expert decree has been passed
against it. In this connection, I may just enlighten the House on
what happened at the time. Two members of the Commission
came to Mangalore to interview people who are connected with
public life there. In fact, I happened to be one of them and I shall
refer to the detailed conversation in order to show that this
question of including that portion of the Kasaragod taluk north
of the Chandragiri River was not an issue before the
Commission at all. As a matter of fact, in the course of that
conversation- if I should mention the name of the member-
Sardar Panicker himself stated that the Chandragiri River would
be considered a natural boundary and he went to the length of
saying about a thing with which we are not conversant, that in
ancient times Nair women would be ex-communicated if they
crossed the Chandragiri River. It was in the sense that he spoke
to us and he stifled all discussion concerning anything that
related to that portion of the taluk north of the Chandragiri
River. That is why in the Report also it is stated that the
Kanndigas have agreed to the Chandragiri River being the
northern boundary of Kerala. Therefore, the discussion was
regarding which territory the rest of South Kanara district was to
join because there was some dispute relating to the Mysore State
 127

and the United Karaataka people. The Mysoreans were opposing

the formation of United Kamataka and they suggested that there
should be two Kamatakas. But South Kanara was expressing the
opinion that it was not prepared to join a truncated United
Kamataka State without Mysore and they would either merge
with Mysore or at least with Bombay State. This was the way in
which the discussion went on, and there was absolutely no
question of any portion of Kasaragod taluk, north of the
Chandragiri River being added to Kerala. If that were the issue
in question, we would have placed most of the facts within our
knowledge before the Commission. That is why I said earlier
that several things had escaped the notice of the Commission
and this mistake came to be committed in the Report. In fact, the
Commission made the recommendation about Kasaragod on the
ground of administrative convenience. If that topic was
discussed then, we would have pointed out that Hosdurg sub-
taluk which lies to the south of the Chandragiri River had
already been made a sort of taluk headquarters. There would
have been no administrative inconvenience if only the Hosdurg
sub-taluk was to be integrated with the Kerala State In
fact, the issue concerning the portion of the area north of
Chandragiri River was not at all before us and there was
absolutely no necessity to discuss this matter with the members
of the Commission whom we interviewed."*"*

*'' Madras Legislative Assembly Debates., Official Report, Extract from N. N. Suvama's
comments on S R C Report at Madras Legislative Assembly, on 21 November 1955, Vol.
XXVIII, No. 2, pp. 198,199.
 128

C. Subramaniam, Congress Minister of Madras State, spoke in the Madras

Legislative Assembly on 23 November 1955:

It is said from time immemorial that the trade relations of

Kasaragod taluk have been closed with Mysore and Coorg as also
Puttur and Mangalore taluks of South Canara .... There is a
network of roads connecting this area with those parts and it is
from Mangalore that the various commodities needed by this area
are imported. Similarly, vast quantities of food grains have to be
imported from Coorg, Puttur and Mangalore. The court language
in Civil, Criminal and Revenue Courts of Kasaragod, the main
taluk, i.e., the area to the north of Chandragiri River is Kannada.''^

In the same way, M. S. Morgal, M L A from Kasaragod in Madras

Legislative Assembly, criticised the 72 percent Malayalam linguistic figure in
Kasaragod. He said that the Malayalam language of Kasaragod was an admixture
of the regional language and a local dialect Tulu with a superficial coating of
Malayalam.''^ Again, on 24 November 1955, a motion was put forward and carried
fixing the northern arm of the Chandragiri river as the boundary and the portion to
the north of the river allotted to Kamataka and that to the south of the river alone
was allotted to Kerala and that the islands of Laccadive, Amindive and Minicoy be
constituted into a centrally administered area. The Madras Assembly
recommended it by 100 votes to eighteen.''^ The Mysore Legislature also passed a

"^ Madras Legislative Assembly Proceedings., on 23 November 1955, Vol. XXXVl, p. 254.
'*/fcW.,p.296.
'*' Madras Legislative Assembly Debates., Official Report, Extract from the Madras
Government's comments on S R C Report at Madras Legislative Assembly, on 24 November
1955, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, p. 419.
 129

resolution on similar lines.'*^

Consequently, on 18 April 1956, the Chief Minister of Madras wrote to the

Minister for Home Affairs, insisting on the inclusion of the portion north of the
Chandragiri river in Mysore State. The Madras Government was of the opinion
that:

In this particular case, moreover arguments between the

parties to divide the Kasaragod taluk is by no means important,
and is based on the acceptance of the Chandragiri River as the
traditional northern boundary of Kerala. The country north of the
Chandragiri, it has further been argued, used to be called Tuluva
by name. Historical evidence supports this contention; and even at
the present time, the resorting of language slips village wise has
clearly established the marked predominance of Tulu north of the
Chandragiri. If Tulu is regarded, on the authority of Caldwell and
other philologists as more closely allied to Kanarese than it is to
Malayalam, it will clearly be appropriate to divide the Kasaragod
taluk, in order that the Tulu speaking areas may be retained in
Kamataka, for the Chandragiri is traditionally regarded as the
southern boundary of the Tulu speaking area. It will not be
advisable to disperse the Tulu speaking community in two
linguistic areas, namely Kamataka and Kerala. The language and
culture of this small community will need to be protected and it is
felt that the inclusions of the entire community in Kamataka will

48
Copy of letter No. 1117/ 56-2 on 19 April 1956, Regarding the States Reorganisation -
inclusion of the northern portion of Kasaragod taluk lying to the north of Chandragiri River in
Mysore State,fromthe Chief Minister, Madras to the Minister for Home Affairs of India, New
Delhi, M H A, N A I, New Delhi., p. 1.
 130

be desirable and will be welcomed by the community itself. In the

light of the foregoing considerations and taking into account the
fact that Madras and Mysore legislatures have recommended the
breaking up of this taluk, while the opposition from Kerala is not
likely to be serious, the Chandragiri (north arm) may be fixed as
the Kerala - Kamataka boundary in this taluk."*^

The Kannadigas of Kasaragod put forward another memorandum before the

Government of India on 6 May 1956. It mainly raised four points;

i. That out of 164 schools north of the Chandragiri river, Kannada is the
medium of instruction in 144 schools;
ii. Out of thirty six Panchayat Boards north of the Chandragiri river, thirty
four have passed resolutions against the transfer of this area;
iii. Out of 4,000 documents registered every year in this area only ten percent
is registered in Malayalam, and
iv. The hereditary village officers north of the Chandragiri River were mostly
Kannadigas. ^°

It was also pointed out that the 'Malabar Tenancy Act' applied only to the
villages south of Chandragiri and did not apply north of the Chandragiri.^' While
the demands and counter demands of Kannadigas for Kasaragod went on, the
Government of Travancore-Cochin presented its views regarding the taluk before

*' Copy of letter No. 1117/56-2 dated 19 April 1956, Regarding the States Reorganisation -
inclusion of the northern portion of Kasaragod taluk lying to the north of Chandragiri River in
Mysore State, from the Chief Minister, Madras to the Minister for Home Affairs, New Delhi,
pp. 3, 4. M H A, N A I, New Delhi.
'" File No. 06/ 05/ 56- S R III, Regarding the Memorandums to the Government of India by the
people of Kasaragod taluk, dated 30/ 09/ 56, pp. 1, 2.
'^ Copy of letter No. 1117/ 56- 2, op. cit, p. 1.
 131

the Government of India that "the whole of the Kasaragod taluk should be retained
in Kerala as recommended by the Commission."^^ One of the memorandums sent
to the Indian Government by the Travancore- Cochin Government stated:

The Commission has recommended that the Kasaragod taluk

of South Canara should form part of Kerala. It, however, reported
that a claim has been put forward that the portion of the taluk
north of the Chandragiri River should go to Kamataka and should
not be part of Kerala. This is a claim to sub-divide a taluk, which
should not normally be allowed.

Travancore- Cochin Government submitted an affidavit regarding the

language figure on percentages of population in the taluk on the whole and the
portion north of Chandragiri separately as below:

Malayalam 73%

Tulu 14%
Kannada 5%
Marathi 4%
Others 1%
Konkani 3%

The percentage in the area lying to the north of the Chandragiri River was as
follows:

Malayalam 58%
Tulu 25%

" File No. 20/ 01/ 55- SR, Comments on the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission
from the Government of Travancore-Cochin, M H A States Reorganisation Section, N A I, New
Delhi, pp. 2, 3.
 132

Kannada 10%
Marathi 3%
Konkani 3%
Others 1%53

At the same time, the State of Madras also submitted an affidavit regarding
the language figure of Kasaragod for the linguistic composition of the entire taluk:

Malayalam 72.0%
Tulu 14.2%
Kannada 6.3%
Others 7.5%

According to them, the Linguistic complexion north and south of the

Chandragiri was given in the following table as below:

Table No. 4.1.

Madras affidavit on the population figure in Kasaragod/"*

North of the population Malayalam Tulu Kannada

Chandragiri River
1,94,590 51.74 26.4 9.5
Kasaragod town 22,711 64.0 12.7 11.4
South of the 2,16,184 90.21 3.32 3.88
Chandragiri River
Hosdurg town 19,308 80.08 1.3 10.7

" Copy of letter No. 111II56- 2, op. cit, p. 1.

'"/fcW.p. 1.
 133

From the above table it was clearly indicated that the new Kamataka State
hardly had any claim for this taluk either in full or in part, on linguistic grounds.^^
The S R C suggested that in any case an area less than a taluk should not be taken
as a unit, and the percentage of persons speaking the language of the State
claiming it should not be less than seventy percent in the taluk.^^ Hereafter, the
Malayalam linguistic group, north of the Chandragiri River, Tulu remains in the
second position. It unanimously supported the facts provided by both
Governments. The Tulu language, which comes after Malayalam, to the second
position, had no script. The language remained only in spoken form. The Kannada
language-speaking people remained only a mere ten per cent.

Kerala's claim to the whole of the taluk was based on two grounds. Firstly, it
was contended that Kerala, being a small State, border disputes should generally
be settled in its favour. Secondly, it was argued that the Malayalam majority in the
taluk as a whole was about seventy-two percent and that this majority could not be
ignored. It also stressed that the linguistic complexion of both north and south of
en
the Chandragiri River in this taluk indicated the predominance of Malayalam.

The S R Section, the Office of Home Minister Department and the Union
Cabinet carefiiUy observed the claims and proceedings of Madras, Mysore and
Travancore-Cochin States and the memorandums from each States. B. Siva Rao,
representing the Mangalore Lok Sabha Constituency, which included the

" File No. 20/01/1955 -SR., Comments on the Report of the States Reorganization Commission
from the Travancore-Cochin Government, Regarding the Kasaragod taluk, Ministry of Home
affairs,, pp. 18-19.
'* Mehr Chand Mahajan, The Report of the Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala
Boundary Disputes, Vol. I, 1967, p. 24.
" File No, 38/ 02/ 56- S R II, Secret, Regarding the States Reorganisation - inclusion of the
northern portion of Kasaragod taluk lying to the north of Chandragiri River in Mysore State, M
H A, New Delhi, p. 2.
 134

Kasaragod main taluk, and U. Srinivas Mallaiah, the other Lok Sabha member
from the South Kanara District and K. S, Hegde, member of the Rajya Sabha,
anxiously followed the developments regarding the future position of Kasaragod at
Delhi.^^

By this time, the S R Section prepared a note, which examined various

aspects regarding the transfer of the area north of the Chandragiri River to the
Mysore State. It was submitted to the President by the S R C Department on 31
December 1955. The conclusion of the note is given below;

i. Public opinion in the area north of the river Chandragiri (Payaswini) has
been insistent that the traditional boundary between Kerala and Kamataka,
which has been fixed so far along the course of this river, should be
recognized,
ii. Almost all the Panchayat Boards north of the Chandragiri passed
resolutions in favour of the transfer of this area to the new Mysore State.
Instruction, in about ninety-three percent of the schools situated in this
area is being imparted in Kannada; and business was stated to be carried
on predominantly in this language.
iii. Tulu, it has also been pointed out, was spoken by an appreciable section
of the population north of the Chandragiri River; and the transfer of this
area to the new Mysore state was liable to keep the Tulu speaking
population together.
iv. Administratively, the bifurcation of the taluk on the lines proposed may
not create any problem, and having regard to public opinion in this area
and the fact that the Malayalam majority is only nominal, even according

'* Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-

Kerala Boundary Disputes, on behalf of the South Kanara District Congress Committee, by its
President, K. K. Shetty, M L C. pp. 4, 5, K P S A L Kasaragod.
 135

to the census figures, there was no case for the transfer of the area to
Kerala.
V. The Government of Travancore-Cochin, on the other hand, has repeatedly
represented that there is no case in its opinion for the transfer from the
proposed Kerala State to the new Mysore State of the area north of the
Chandragiri river in this taluk,
vi. It has also been calculated that Malayalam speaking persons were in a
majority not only in the whole of this taluk but also constituted 51.74 per
cent of the population in the disputed area.^^

On this note, an amendment on the transfer to the new Mysore State of the
area north of the Chandragiri River in the Kasaragod taluk was adopted (though
not by the Legislatures of the States) to which the State Reorganisation Bill was
referred by the President under the proviso to article 3 of the Constitution.^*^ This
stand however, invited severe criticism.

Having known the decision to separate the portion of Kasaragod taluk north
of Chandragiri River from the proposed Kerala State and add to Mysore, S. R.
Rao, the Adviser to Travancore-Cochin Rajpramukh wrote to Govind Vallabh
Pant, Minister for Home Affairs, thus:

If it be thought that a natural boundary like a river should be

the northern boundary of Kerala and the areas to the north of the
Chandragiri River should be made part of the Kamataka state,
then on similar considerations the southern boundary of the

" File No. 31/12/ 55, S R II, Secret, A note submitted to the Cabinet by the State Reorganisation
Department, S R Section, N A I, New Delhi, pp. 1, 2.
" File No. 38/ 02/ 56- S R II, Amendments Proposed to the provisions contained in part II of the
States Reorganisation Bill, (Territorial Changes and Formation of new States), M H A, N A 1,
New Delhi, pp. 14, 15.
 136

Kerala state should be the Kuzhitura River (Thamra pami). If the

Kuzhitura River is declared to be the southern boundary of the
Kerala State then a small portion of the Vilavancode taluk will
also be part of Kerala.

On the other hand, there is no justification for not including

the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri district in the proposed Kerala
State. This taluk was originally a part of the Malabar district and
the majority of the population is Malayalam speaking. The system
of land tenure, the customs and habits of the people, the natural
lie of the land all point to the irresistible conclusion that Gudalur
should form part of Malabar.

Lastly, this is an extremely serious matter for Kerala, which

is going to be the smallest State in India and it is essential that all
territories unquestionably Malayalee should be included in it.^'

The Madras Government and its leaders were strongly against the proposal
to allot Gudalur taluk to Kerala and had insisted on retaining it. However, the
Government of India was convinced that the decision to fix the Chandragiri river
as the natural boundary of Kerala and Kamataka an inpractical one. Consequently,
the decision was cancelled.

About this decision Hari Sharma, Joint Secretary of State Reorganization

Commission said that the question of the division of Kasaragod taluk was

*' Letter on 30 April 1956, P. S. Rao, the Advisor of Rajpramukh to Govinda Vallabh Pant,
Minister for Home Affairs, Secret, N A I, New Dellii, p. 3.
^^ Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-
Kerala Boundary Disputes, on behalf of the South Kanara District Congress Committee, by its
President, K. K. Shetty, M L C, p. 5.
 137

submitted by the States Reorganisation Department to the President in which all

relevant and admissible arguments were considered and a recommendation had
actually been made in favour of the division of the taluk. But the Cabinet rejected
the proposal of the President, because the decision would revive and lead to other
border issues. Kamataka's claim to the northern part of the Kasaragod taluk was,
however not conceded on two main considerations that it would involve going
down below the taluk level for the purpose of demarcating State boundaries, and
that if conceded, it would revive Kerala's claim to the Gudalur taluk. No new
circumstance had arisen necessitating a review of the decision already taken.^^

Thus without any change from the recommendation of the S R C the Central
Government was forced to include the portion which lies north of the Chandragiri
also to Kerala. ^''

But, the dispute over Kasaragod never ended with this decision. K. S. Hegde,
M. P, Royapettah, Madras, in his letter dated on 2 April 1956, accused that after
some days the S R Section decision approved by the President to transfer the
portions of the area north of Chandragiri which was already published and that the
Cabinet had changed its decision due to political pressure.^^ Thereafter, when the
State Reorganisation Bill (S R Bill) was placed before Parliament, the South
Kanara Congress leaders attempted to get this decision reversed. B. Siva Rao, M P

" File No. 38/ 02/ 56 - S R II, Amendments proposed to the provisions contained in part II of the
States Reorganisation Bill, (territorial changes and formation of new States), Hari Sharma's
reply to K. S. Hegde, M. P, Royapettah, Madras and M L A's of South Kanara district who
sought the review of the Government's decision in respect of the Kasaragod taluk, M H A, N A
I, New Delhi, p. 1.
" File No. 20/01/ 55- SR, Comments on the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission
from the Government of Travancore-Cochin, M H A States Reorganisation Section, N A I, New
Delhi, p. 2, 3.
*' Letter to the Prime Minister of India from K. S. Hegde, M. P, Royapettah, Madras, through the
Chief Minister of Madras, dated 2/ 04/ 56, p. 3.
 138

from Mysore, in the Lok Sabha and Dr. P. Subrarayan, M P from Madras, in the
Rajya Sabha, appealed to get the area north of Chandragiri to Kamataka. Both
attempts were rejected, like all other amendments.^^

One of the memorandums submitted by S K D C detailed, that G. B. Pant,

Home Minister as well as Prime Minister Nehru were convinced and appreciated
the idea for merger of this area to Kamataka. During this time, violence broke out
in Bombay to split the multilingual State of Bombay into the two States of
Maharashtra and Gujarat. The Prime Minister, Jewaharlal Nehru who appeared to
have made up his mind to keep Bombay as a composite State, reacted sharply and
reiterated "No change from the S R C Report" and once again, the attempt of
Kamataka leaders to get back the north portions of Chandragiri of Kasaragod
found no result.^^

Meanwhile, protesting against the decision of the Government of India, the

United Kamataka leaders of Kasaragod assembled at Kasaragod and passed a
resolution. The resolution condemned that the present decision of the Government
to merge the Kasaragod taluk with Kerala was against the assurance that it would
be merged with Kamataka. A Conference urged the central Govemment to alter
the decision by appointing a Boundary Commission or by other means. The
Conference also requested the Govemment of Mysore to take necessary steps to
regain all the areas of Kasaragod. The resolution was submitted before the States
Reorganisation Department on 28 October 1956. The representatives were given

^Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala

Boundary Disputes, on behalf of the South Kanara District Congress Committee, by its
President, K. K. Shetty, M L C. p. 6.
*^ Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-
Kerala Boundary Disputes, on behaJf of the South Kanara District Con^^ess Committee, by its
President, K. K. Shetty, M L C. p. 5.
 139

assurance that the subject be considered after the appointed day.68

Thus, when the appointed day, 1 November 1956, approached the old
Kasaragod taluk of South Kanara district of the Madras State was transferred to
Kerala.^^ The problems and arbitration regarding Kasaragod did not find a solution
even after the amalgamation of Kasaragod with Kerala on 1 November 1956.

The Kannadigas continued their struggle in all constitutional ways, for

getting Kasaragod and adding it to Mysore State even after the formation of the
State of Kerala. The consequent events after 1956, led finally to the appointment
of Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission by Government of India, for finding a
solution in Mysore-Kerala Boundary Disputes on 25 October 1966.^°

The Government of Kerala assured all support and made all arrangements for
the successfiil fiinction of the Commission. But, the State of Kerala did not take
part in the enquiry of the Coirunission.^'

The Commission consciously examined the details regarding Kasaragod and

invited proposals and suggestions from all comers. The Commission first
examined the election result since 1957. In the General elections in 1957, in the
midterm elections in 1960 and 1965 and in the 1967 General elections, the pro
merger candidates sponsored the 'Kasaragod Karnataka Prathikarana Samithi' {K

** File No. 6/ 28/ 56- S R III, Regarding the Communications on the proposal of South Kanara
district of Madras state to the proposed Kerala State, The Resolution passed by Kamataka
Conference held at Kasaragod on 28 October 1956, p. 10.
*' Report of the Kasaragod Development Committee., Government of Kerala, 1971. (hereafter R
K D C). Introduction, p. I. The Kasaragod taluk on 1 January 1957 split up into Hosdurg and
Kasaragod taluks. This however continues to be known as the "Kasaragod area." Report of the
Kasaragod Development Committee., Introduction, p. I. The fourteenth district of the State of
Kerala, compiling Hosdurg and Kasaragod taluks in the Kannur district, Kasaragod district
came into being on 24 May 1984. G. O. (M. S) No. 520/ 84/ RD dated 19 May 1984.
'" Mahajan Commission Report., p. 1.
'^ Ibid, p. 195.
 140

K P S) have all along been successful in the Manjeswar Assembly Constituency,

comprising mostly of Manjeswar and Kumbala firkasP In the Kasaragod
Assembly Constituency, which included the four revenue villages, the candidates
sponsored by the K K P S have won in the 1967 General elections7^ In the 1960
and 1965 elections, the K K P S candidates lost, but had secured a substantial
majority in the area north of Chandragiri-Payaswini/'* In the 1957 General
election, the K K P S candidate's nomination was rejected on a technical ground.
They supported the Congress candidate who gave them a written assurance of
support for merger and he won7^ In the 1965 election, K. Mahabala Bhandary and
K. A. Shetty contested as Congress candidates in Manjeswar and Kasaragod
constituencies respectively. The Samithy supported the Congress, on the assurance
of support to the merger of northern portion of Kasaragod with Kamataka given

^^ Minutes of the K K P S Annual Report of the year, 1968, K P S A L Kasaragod.

" The K K P S supported independent candidate U. P. KunikuUaya won the elections by 95 votes.
The total number of valid votes was 45,904. U. P. KunikuUaya got 20,635. His chief opponent
H. A. Shemnad who was supported by Muslim League (M L) got 20, 540. The Indian National
Congress (I N C) Candidate V. K. S. Nair could collect only 4, 729 votes out of 45,904 valid
votes. Assembly Elections Since 1951, p. 71.
''' In the 1960 elections, the K K P S supported candidate lost only by 3652 votes. The victorious
candidate of I N C named M. Kunhikannan Nambiar secured 19, 399 votes. Anantharama
Chetti, independent candidate but supported by K K P S secured 15,747 votes and Abu Nambiar
from Communist Party of India (C P I)secured 13,663 out of 48,809 total valid of votes. In the
1965 elections, E. Abdul Kader of I N C won. He defeated the K K S P supported candidate K.
A. Shetty by 2139 votes. In this election E. Abdul Kader won 21,923 votes, K. A. Shetty won
19,784 votes, B. V. Kunhambu (C P I) won 2,335 and K. V. Kunhikannan,(independent, Hear
after ind.) got 2220. All were out of 46,262 of total valid number of votes. Assembly Elections
Since 1951. pp. 51, 59.
^' Memorandum submitted to Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission on Maharashtra- Mysore-Kerala
Boundary Disputes, on behalf of the South Kanara District Congress Committee (hereafter S K
D C C) by its President K. K. Shetty, Member of Legislative Council, (hereafter M L C). In
1957 election the K K S P supported Congress candidate got 10,290 votes, the P S P candidate
Narayanan Nambiyar got 10,096 votes and the C P I candidate N Ganapathy Kamath got 6'479.
The Congress candidate won the election by 194 votes over the P S P candidates. Assembly
Elections Since 1951, p. 50.
 141

by the Kasaragod D C C. K. Mahabala Bhandary from Manjeswar constituency

won. While K. A. Shetty from Kasaragod constituency lost. ^^

Some memorandums presented to the Commission in favour of Kannada side

pointed out the writings of 'the South Kanara District Manual', writings and
speeches of political leaders like E. M. S Namboodripad, Joseph Mundassery etc,
for strengthening their arguments.

One of the memoranda presented to the Commission quoted the following

passage from the South Canara District Manual.

A little to the South of Kasaragod village, a large backwater

is formed by the Chandragiri river which constitutes the boundary
between the Tulu and Malayalee races. Ancient Tuluva or Tulu
Nadu comprised the whole of South Kanara District to the north
of the Payaswini-Chandragiri River and the High Range of the
Adoor Hills in the south, and a part of north Kanara District in the
north.^^

The Kannadiga leaders of Kasaragod sent a memorandum to the Home

Ministry, in which they accused that E M S , the leading Communist leader and

'^ Letter from S K D C C President to K P C C President, K. C. Abraham, dated 25, 1, 1965, and
its reply to the mentioned candidates, pp. 1, 2. In this election the K K P S supported I N C
candidate could find victory over the Communist Party of India (Marxist) candidate by 5844
votes. The K K P S supported I N C candidate got 20,983 votes. The Communist Party of India
(Marxist) candidate got 15,139 votes. While an independent candidate got 4,319 out of 40,441
valid numbers of votes. Meanwhile in Kasaragod constituency the K K P S supported I N C
candidate was defeated by the united front of M L and C P I (M) candidate E. Abdul Kader for
2139 votes. Out of 46,262 valid votes E. Abdul Kader, K. A. Shetty, M. Umanath Rao, B. V.
Kunhambu, (C P I), K. V. Kunhikannan, (ind.) secured 21923, 19784, 2335and 2220
respectively. Assembly Elections Since 1951, p. 59.
^^ A brief note on Kasaragod., p. 10. Sturrock., South Kanara District Manual, (Vol. I),
Bangalore, 1942, pp. 13-14.
 142

Historian clearly pointed out that the portions that lie beyond the Chandragiri, is
part of Kamataka. The memorandum mentioned some paragraphs from his book,
The national Question in Kerala, published in 1952,

The people of the Northern half of the then Kasaragod taluk

(which is mainly inhabited by Tulu people) are closer to
Kamataka and also that this portion is not part of Kerala.

Tulu, Coorg and other people should be

considered sub- nationalities closer to Kamataka than Kerala.

Only about half of the Kasaragod taluk in South Canara

should be part of Kerala. ^^

According to one of the memoranda, Joseph Mundassery, the first Education

Minister of Kerala, pointed out in his celebrated work Kozhinja Elakal thus:

The opinion of all right minded people in Kerala was that

even if Kanyakumari district in the south goes off our hands, the
area including Gudalur and extending up to Chandragiri River on
7Q

the north should comprise the Kerala State.

According to one of the memorandum, C. Achutha Menon mentioned at

Kasaragod:

It is not fair argument that the whole of Kasaragod should be

merged with Mysore State. But some villages on the northem part

'* A brief note on Kasaragod., p. 11. Namboodripad, E M S., The National Question in Kerala,
Calcutta, 1952, p. 2.
" ^ brief note on Kasaragod., p. 11. Joseph Mundassery., Kozhinjha Elakal, (Mai), Kottayam,
1962, p. 98.
 143

of Kasaragod taluk have got a majority of Kannada speaking

people. It can be examined whether these villages should go to
Mysore or remain in Kerala. At the time of reorganization of
States and also at other times they have put forth this argument. ^°

The Mehr Chand Mahajan Commission submitted its Report on 25 August

1967. The Commission recommended thus:

So far as the taluk of Kasaragod is concerned, the

Commission on the ex-parte material placed before it
recommends that this taluk, minus the eight villages, Bandadka,
Kuttikole, Bedadka, Kolathura, Tekkila, Perambale, Chemnad and
Kalanadu, lying to the south of the natural boundary consisted by
the Chandragiri and Payaswini rivers, and the Adoor, Hills
reserve forest, be transferred to the State of Mysore form the State
of Kerala on administrative, economic, geographical and grounds
of facility of communication, which in the opinion of the
Commission over-ride the linguistic consideration.*'

The assumption of the Commission was based on the affidavits submitted

from Kannadiga and not on hearing the arguments of Kerala. The writings of E M
S and other leaders of various organisations were also considered seriously by the
Commission. Meanwhile, the Commission consciously ignored that what is
expressed in writings and speeches were merely their opinions and not the
opinions of political parties or organization, which they represent. The Kerala

*° Achutha Menon. C, "Kasaragod Problem", (Mai), Navayugam, weekly, 22/10/1966, p-.7.

*' Mahajan Commission Report.
*^ In the Report it is seen that, "the present Chief Minister of Kerala, EMS Namboodripad, and
other leaders of different organizations in the past have also felt the same way as appears from
their various writings and speeches to which my attention was drawn." Ibid, p. 191.
 144

State Legislature or any organization of Kerala State except the Kannada

representing organization never bothered about the issue. It was contended by the
Kerala Government and some sections of the people in Kerala that the Mahajan
Commission Report was an ex-parte one and not binding on them.^^ The Report
was not given any consideration by the State Government of Kerala.

Urging the Government of India to implement the recommendations of the

Mahajan Commission, the Kamataka State Legislative Assembly passed
resolutions on 26 December 1967,^^ 28 February 1970^^ and 26 December 1970.^^
The first resolution accepted with overwhelming majority (Ayes 90 and Noes 3)
the other two resolutions were accepted unanimously. However, these resolutions
were considered as merely the aspiration of a State and not the need of the
Kasaragod district. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission report remained
only a suggestion.

According to linguistic statistics, after Malayalam, Tulu comes second. The

Tulu linguistic people, about fifteen per cent of the total population of the disputed
area felt that they would be treated as minorities, whether it was in Kerala or
Kamataka. So, they never joined any side of the States. The Government of Kerala
was very conscious of protecting and promoting their language, culture, heritage
etc, of Tulu people. They are in some way satisfied with the consideration

*^ A Brief Note on kasaragod., p. 2.

^ Mahajan Commission Report, p. 195.
*' Mysore Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report, Second Session, Vol. VIII. (1 to 8), 15
December 1967 to 23 December 1967, (20 December 1967), p. 423., Kamataka State Archives,
Bangalore.
*' Mysore Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report, Seventh Session, Vol. XXIV. (1 to 10),
23 February 1970 to 5 March 1970, (28 February), p. 475. Kamataka State Archives, Bangalore.
*^ Mysore Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report, Ninth Session, Vol. XXIX. (1 to 3), 23
December 1970 to 26 December 1970, (26 December 1970), p. 19., Kamataka State Archives,
Bangalore.
 145

provided to the Tulu minorities by the Government of Kerala.

The argument for amalgamation of Kasaragod with Mysore (Kamataka)

taken up by some leaders was only for their personal interest. Kerala was not
ready to give away the area to Kamataka. Thus the findings of the Commission,
considering only the arguments and suggestions of Kannada side, did not deserve
any consideration.

Even when within the Madras State, Kasaragod taluk suffered from the
disadvantage of distance, as it was at the northern end of the State. After States
reorganization, the same disadvantage of distance continued to exist. There
prevailed a general grievance that Kasaragod area comprising the two taluks of
Kasaragod and Hosdurg were not receiving adequate attention. Added to this was
the problem arising out of the Kannada speaking minority. The Government of
Kerala, therefore, considered it necessary to tackle the problems of the overall
development of the Kasaragod area. Accordingly, a development programme was
drawn up for implementation. The Government constituted a committee for
formulating specific proposals for the development of Kasaragod with special
reference to irrigation, agriculture, industry and communication.

The recommendations of the Committee covered programme of all-round

development of the Kasaragod area. It envisaged development of communication,
irrigation, electricity, agriculture, industry and so on. The implementation of the
programme was to be in the course of thirteen years covering fourth, fifth and
sixth five-year plans. The schemes were to be taken up according to priority as

** Interview with P. Raghavan, famous Tulu sholar. He wrote the text Tulu Nadum Bhashayum
Nattarivum, Aged 87, at his residence in Kasaragod taluk, on 30 March, 2009.
"' G. O. (M. S) 11/ 70/ Pig. on 12 May 1970., G. O. (M. S) 15/ 70/ Pig. on 5 June 1970., G. O.
(M. S) 36/ 70/ Pig. on 2 December 1970., Report of the Kasaragod Development Committee.,
Introduction, p. I.
 146

indicated. This involves very efficient liaison work.^°

Thus, these economic, cultural and linguistic considerations given by the

Governments to this region could reduce the linguistic temper, which prevailed in
this region. The special packages given for maintaining the backwardness of the
region was a relief to the complex issues, which prevailed there. Equal priority
being given to the whole area is entirely a diplomatic one. These factors invite our
attention to the whole nation where the States' linguistic temper prevails even
today.

90
Report of the Kasaragod Development Committee., Introduction, p. I.