• Search 


call for papers

Volume: III, Issue: I, January-June 2012



The memoir as an offshoot of memory unfolds vast canvas of a historical period, in which an individual witnessed and experienced the multiple events in his/her life. As an eyewitness account, it presents us interesting insights into the past as experienced and perceived by the individual. It reveals how an individual’s memory can intersect or intermingle with the historical phenomenon. Hence the paper endeavors to critically explore and interrogate the political milieu and the anti-colonial resistance as communicated in a memoir ‘Poor Life’ written in 1985 in Telugu language by Yelamanchili Venkatappayya. It essentially focuses on the critical contribution of Venkatappayya to the anti-colonial struggle as an active agent of resistance in the locale of Tenali in Andhra province. Thus the memoir ‘Poor Life’ is the narrative of what happened in colonial Andhra under the British colonial regime from the perspective of oppressed as well as participant in the anti-colonial struggle. This gives the memoir a unique significance as some of the British ruthless oppressive methods are carefully unmasked and the resolute acts of resistance by Indians are recreated. Thus the memoir is a forceful text on the context of British colonial regime and the anti-colonial resistance of Indian people. 

Keywords Content


There is an interesting discourse on the relevance and role of memory in the historiography of any social phenomenon [Patrick H. Hutton, 1993: xi to xxv, 1-6, 154-168]. The question is often raised whether collective or individual memory can serve the purpose of recapturing the objective social reality. And also there is this persistent dilemma that whether the memory recollected and recorded as oral source or as written as a memoir can be regarded as an authentic source for construction or reconstruction of history of any social event. This position is strongly espoused by the modern historiography, which considers only the hard facts or objective sources as being truly authentic sources for comprehending any social phenomenon or for constructing or reconstructing any social reality [Patrick H. Hutton, 1993: xxii and xxiii].

There is also an argument which supports the notion that memory is an alternative to history. This position assigns equal, if not primary, importance to the non-material sources for construction of social phenomenon. It assumes that the subjective imagination of collectivity or an individual can be as important as the hard facts or objective sources for writing about social reality1. This view pits Memory against History. It is forcibly argued that emergence of Memory promises to rework and push History’s boundaries [Kerwin Lee Klein, 2000: 127-150]2. The 1980s saw a great surge of interest in the uses of memory and its status as an alternative source of history. Yet, the enigmatic question still haunts whether the History constructed with memory as a key source is authentic or does it truly represent the past or does it essentially “...re-enchant our relation with the world and pour presence back into the past” [Kerwin Lee Klein, 2000: 145]. These are apparently the intriguing questions on the relationship between Memory and History.

However, given the contentious ideological positions of both the views, I consider that both of them have their own significance and validity and are in their own way convincing in their standpoints. What needs to be explored is the intersecting space that lies between both the arguments. Memory supplements and not replaces History. It can not be an alternative to History as it may fail the acid test of historical veracity pertaining to the accuracy of facts. It can however be an important non-material source for comprehending a historical process or social phenomenon as it is stored in the minds of the people and it can be retrieved from them afterwards3.

Therefore imagination and creativeness are as critical to a historian, who constructs history and interprets social phenomenon based on material evidences as to the narrator of a fiction or memoir, who articulates on social events in the past or present based on individual experiences essentially through an act of recollecting or remembering those social events that fashioned or transformed the society4. Hence, to dismiss the narratives, oral or written, as of insignificant or irrelevant to the project of writing of history is too hasty5. Similarly, to argue that all history is only a narrative of social phenomenon is to disregard the significance of history as scientific enterprise to understand the past6.

Hence, I locate the relevance of memoir as a creative and critical text on the diverse contexts in the past and present.  Memoir as a product of memory reconnects the past with the present or present with the past. It demonstrates how the collectivity’s or individual’s memory could overlap with the historical phenomenon as memoir an upshot of “memory begins when something in the present stimulates an association.” David Paul Nord (1998: 409). Therefore every recovery of memory is a reassembly of memory and our memories and our histories are inexorably fashioned by present needs [David Paul Nord, 1998: 410]7.

The paper therefore attempts to critically explore and interrogate the political environment and anti-colonial struggle in Andhra as articulated in a memoir by Yelamanchili Venkatappayya. It principally focuses on the contributions of Venkakatappayya to the anti-colonial struggle, who was both a victim of British colonial oppression and also an active mobilizer of resistance against that oppression in the locale of Tenali. Thus the memoir ‘Poor Life’ is the saga of what happened in colonial Andhra under the British colonial regime from a perspective of the oppressed as well as participant in the anti-colonial struggle in Andhra. This gives the memoir a unique significance as some of British ruthless oppressive methods are carefully unmasked.  The Memoir represented solely with memory as a source of validation brings out the oppressive political environment in colonial Andhra.

Life history of Yelamanchili Venkatappayya (1898-1997)

Yelamanchili Venkatappayya was born in a village called Kanumuru, in Pamarru “firka”, Gudiwada taluq, Krishna district in the year 1898. His parents were Aademma and Ankappa. His wife was Basavamma, whom he married some time in 1924. Basavamma was the third daughter of Bobba Basavayya from Maineni vari palem in Repalle taluq of Guntur district. They had a son and a daughter. His wife expired in 1976, while he in the year 1997.

When he was a child, his father had shifted the family from Kanumuru to Paidi Kondapalem in Gudivada Taluq in 1912. Staying for some time at his aunt’s house in Kotta Kumuddali village which was near to the village Kanumuru, he learnt English from Gatti Subba Rao Pantulu in 1914. He studied English for two years and joined 8th std in S.K.P.P High school in Vijayawada some time in 1916. Here he was financially helped by the generosity of Pinnamaneni Peda Subbayya from Kurumaddali village. He had spent some of his student life in Kamma Students Hostel. He failed in S.S.L.C. examination. And when he was preparing for it again in 1919, he came under the influence of Gandhi when he visited Vijayawada and delivered his speech in connection with the propaganda of the Rowlatt Agitation. His interest in Hindi led him to Nellore, where he learnt the Hindi language in Hindi Pracharak Shikshana Kendra for six months in 1922. In 1924, he went to Kasi and then to Allahabad, where he had learnt Hindi for another six months in Hindi Vidya Petam established by Sri Purushotam Das Tandon. Subsequently he paid a visit to Sabarmati Satyagraha Ashram established by Mahatma Gandhi in Ahmadabad. For sometime he had endeavored to teach Hindi in some of the villages in Krishna and Guntur districts. After his marriage, he stayed in the village Maineni vari palem till 1927 and later on shifted to Iyitanagar in Tenali in 1929, where he had again happened to meet Gandhi who was on a campaign of Temple entry program of the Harijans. Here he got the opportunity to translate his speech from Hindi to Telugu.

After India’s independence, he mostly focused his attention on imparting Hindi in Iyitanagar in Tenali starting a school exclusively for the girls. The school was however closed in 1967. He had written several works on different themes such as “What is Caste?”, “Gods meant for whom?”, “Is not idol worship contrary to Vedas?”, “What for Swaraj?”. Thus his memoir displays his phenomenal growth from a poor and struggling child undergoing many hurdles to acquire education to a freedom fighter, the promoter of Hindi language and a bitter critic of social obscurantism.

 Representing anti-colonial struggle in Andhra

At the outset, Venkatappayya forewarns the readers of the intention of his memoir in the following words:

Some of the conditions may look like fantasies to today’s readers. But they are not my imaginations. I submit that they refer to the then era and the conditions, which really happened [Y.Venkatappayya, 1985: 7]. The memoir narrates the political struggles launched against the British colonial regime and his participation during those historic episodes particularly in 1921, 1931, 1933 and 1942 movements in colonial Andhra. We get glimpses of how he was swayed by those flurry of events and also how he became an active agent fashioning their rhythm in the locale of his activity. He states that he was influenced by Gandhi’s speech when he visited Vijayawada in connection with the propaganda of the agitation against the Rowlatt Acts in 1919. Subsequently, he decided to discontinue his studies and join the Congress Programme. He came in contact with the Katragadda Brothers namely, Raghuramayya and Madhusudhana Rao, who were important leaders of the Indian National Congress in Andhra region. And also he along with some other students met Sri Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya, other important leader of National Congress in colonial Andhra, Matnuri Krishna Rao, Hanumanta Rao in Machilipatnam (Bandaru) and learnt from them the political affairs for two weeks8. Immediately after that, they had gone to the villages in east Vijayawada district and propagated the Congress programme. They carried the Khaddar cloth to the villages and sold it to people for few months.

With the involvement and experience in the Indian National Congress’s program of propagating Khaddar, he had decided to have the Khaddar woven in his village Paidi Kondapalem with the help of two Mala (untouchable) weavers. However, this move was opposed by the elders in the village, who began to press them to clean it in the water. The refusal to comply with the decision of the village elders led to his family being prohibited from using the village well. The ban was however lifted when a Brahmin purchased a sari for his wife without it being cleaned or rinsed in the water. Furthermore, the Brahmin was also able to convince the people with explanation that when a cloth made in alien lands was purchased and used why not a cloth properly drenched in rice starch and made in India [Y.Venkatappayya, 1985 : 86-88].

In the year 1921, he was arrested for his role in campaigning against the Government’s auction of green grass grown on the canal bunds.  After one month, he was sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment in Rajamundry Central Jail, where he came in contact with revolutionaries, who narrated the tales of imprisonment in the Andaman Central Jail. Venkatappayya narrates the most terrible and inhuman treatment meted out to the prisoners housed in the Jail. He further presents the details luridly on the clothes worn by the prisoners, the spoiled and rationed food that was provided to them, the corrupt jail officials and their corruption in the supply of food provisions and cloths. The prisoners were made to attend to different jobs in the Jail. Insufficient food, inadequate clothes, cramped accommodation, stinking, intolerable and inhospitable and forbidding premises and inhuman treatment defined their existence during incarceration in the jail. It is interesting to note and quote a short and snappy sentence “Hall is Hell” which was often used by the prisoners to describe their condition in the Jail [Y.Venkatappayya, 1985: 88-94].9

The prison conditions, which were described by the memoirist continued to be the familiar aspect of prison life undergone by all those who were imprisoned during the anti-colonial resistance movements in Andhra upto 1947. The following extracts from Venkatarangaiya’s work, could reinforce what has been depicted by the memoirist:

a) “Every measure taken by Government had before it the one supreme purpose of deterring people from participating in the freedom movement and thus putting an end to it. It was with objective that they accorded to prisoners a kind of treatment which on occasions bordered on extreme cruelty. The severity of treatment started with under-trial prisoners.”

b) “One of the members of the Madras Legislative Council expressed the view that the food supplied in Rajahmundry jail to C class prisoners mixed as it was with nails and worms was unfit for human consumption” [M. Venkatarangaiya, 1974: 33,35].

In the year 1929, Gandhi visited Iyitanagar in Tenali in connection with the temple entry programme of Harijans. On the occasion, the Rama temple in Iyitanagar was thrown open to the Harijans [Y.Venkatappayya, 1985:104-105].10 Salt Satyagraha was intense in the whole of the country. Venkatappayya and his wife left their Hindi Patasala and joined the volunteer corps of Congress; Venkatappayya was active in Ganapavaram in Bapatala Taluq Guntur and his wife in Guntur district. He was arrested and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment for participating in the making of salt in Ganapavaram. Initially he was lodged in Rajamundry jail along with others for one month and later on he along with some others were shifted to Cannur central jail in Kerala, where leaders like Tanguturu Prakasam Pantulu, Konda Venkatappayya, Balusu Sambamurthy, Madduri Annapurnai were also lodged. The Gandhi-Irwin pact saw the lease of all political prisoners from Cannur prison. The memoirist did not see any change in the rules and regulations that were observed in the prisons. Prisoners were classified according to their educational or economic status and ‘A class’ and ‘B class’ prisoners were relatively privileged in their comforts than the ‘C class’ prisoners [Y.Venkatappayya, 1985:105-108].11

The 1932 was the year of unrelenting activity focusing on the Prohibition programme and the boycott programme of foreign cloth. Ventappayya’s wife Basavamma, his sister Sarla Devi and Maineni Basava Purnamma organized the boycott of foreign cloth and they were immediately arrested and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment and they were sent to Rayaveluru Jail.(12) And Venkatappayya, Kottapalli Venkata Krishna Verma, V. Venkayya organized picketing at the toddy trees in Mainenivari Palem in Repalle Taluq. Immediately, a Sub-Inspector along with 12 police constables descended on the spot and showered 70 to 80 Lathi beatings on the picketers until they fell unconscious. For three days, they could no move and remained inactive under the protection of the people of the village. Then after three days, they again attempted to picket the arrack shop in the village, which once again invited the wrath of the British police. They were almost undressed by the British police except for the langota , which covered their private parts. All their dress was burnt.13 These actions of the police enraged the villagers numbering about two to three thousand. To scare the people gathered there, ten to fifteen shots were fired in the air. The people dispersed but the scene was reenacted again. When it was night, they were removed to another place. An interesting aspect of the whole saga was that when Venkatappayya was thirsty, his request for water was met with a reply from Sub-Inspector that urine should be poured in his mouth. The narrator mentions that the constable was hesitant to obey the order. What has been articulated by Venkatappayya was in fact described by a Member of Legislative Council, Madras as to “how urine was poured into the mouth of a volunteers”. M. Venkataragaiya [1974: 301]. Such inhuman and brutal treatment was received by those who offered resistance to the British. The people’s resolute support to the agitators forced the British authorities to set them free. Unrelenting in their anti-British activity, they continued for four months propagating Congress programme in the villages sending 50 to 60 volunteers to carry out the picketing activity. Finally they were arrested and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment. They were sent to Rajamundry Central Jail, where because of insufficient food they lost their eye vision partially. He was released in 1933. Thereafter he attended the Lucknow Congress in 1935. Y. Venkatappayya [1985: 108-115.14

The Quit India movement began in 1942. It is interesting to note as to how Venkatappayya plunged into the movement of 1942. He says thus: “… Meanwhile 1942 Quit India movement began. We decided that one of us should participate in the movement. We have a daughter born to us in 1940. She is two years old. Our boy is six years old.  After arranging economic help for their maintenance and keeping my wife at home, I participated in the movement” [Y. Venkatappayya, 1985: 122].

The entire country witnessed brutal lathi charges and police firings. In Andhra as well, several people were arrested and sentenced to imprisonment. He was also arrested and given one year rigorous imprisonment. He was put in Bellary Jail, where the conditions were not much different from what they were in 1921, 1930, 1932 years. In Bellary Jail also, he came into contact some other prominent personalities namely, Potti Sri Ramulu, Gouthu Lacchanna, Tarimala Nagi Reddy and others. As response to a comment from Jail Superintendent, he along with Goutu Lacchanna, Potti Sri Ramulu and Yerrneni Subramanyam cleaned the toilets in the 8 and 16 blocks for one week. He was released from the Bellary Jail in 1943 and came back to Iyitanagar in Tenali. Thereafter he concentrated on teaching Hindi starting a school only for girls who were mostly from the poor families. His efforts to teach Hindi continued till 1967, when he and his wife were no longer able to run the school because of health reasons [Y.Venkatappayya, 1985: 122-129].

The conclusion

A critical interrogation of the memoir demonstrates the various methods of oppression perpetrated by the British colonial regime to silence the growing voices of resistance in colonial Andhra. The memoir is remarkable as it represents the saga of suffering undergone by an individual who was an actor as well as a spectator to the unfolding of the historic episodes in colonial Andhra. It also alludes to the saga of sacrifice and the undaunted anti-colonial resistance offered to the British colonial regime by multitude of people in Andhra. The memoir captures very interesting snapshots of anti-colonial struggle in its penetrating and critical lenses. The suppression of native people through the brutal torturous methods by British in colonial Andhra was encapsulated and articulated to the people in its naked and ugly expression through the memoir. What we discover in the memoir was a ruthless British colonial regime and undaunted resistance of Indian people, who had to undergo very mortifying experiences in their daily existence. The memoir presents us some absorbing glimpses into the Indian struggle for freedom in colonial Andhra. Therefore it can be considered a highly forceful text on the extant political conditions in colonial Andhra.

Though the memoir traces the several events in the life of Yalamanchili Venkatappayya, and also the ossified and irrational social, religious, cultural practices, the paper focuses on the explosive political movements in colonial Andhra particularly from 1919 to 1947. The memoir is thus a remarkable comment on the political turmoil that colonial Andhra had negotiated throughout the era. What we get from the memoir is a subaltern’s perspective on the anti-colonial struggle of colonial Andhra. The memoir is significant for illuminating the anti-colonial movement with a participant’s sensibility. British colonial oppressive regime with all its myriad manifestations was recreated in the memoir. The memoir thus succeeds in unmasking the past by an accurate and objective representation of the anti-colonial struggle in Andhra.  



1. “…that a good memoir is also a work of history, catching a distinctive movement in the life of both a person and a society.” William Zinsser, ‘Introduction’ in Russel Baker and William Knowlton Zinsser, (eds), Inventing the Truth: The Art and Craft of Memoir, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1998, p.15; Also see Kerwin Lee Llein, ‘On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse’, Representations, No. 69, Special Issue: Grounds for Remembering. (Winter, 2000), p. 145; Note: Memory can come to the fore in an age of historiographic crisis precisely because it figures as a therapeutic alternative to historical discourse.

 2. See for Memory as a alternative to History, Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”, Representations, No. 26, Special Issue: Memory and Counter Memory. (Spring, 1989), pp.7-24; See also for the idea that history is a project of memory as memory bears testimony to history, David Lowenthal, “History and Memory”, The Publice Historian, Vol.19, No.2, (Spring, 1997), pp. 30-39.

3. See for the ideas of consideration of memory as a source of representing the past, Alon Confino, “Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method”, The American Historical Review, Vol.102, No. 5 (Dec., 1997), pp.1386-1403. 

4. “…Memoir was defined as some portion of a life. Unlike autobiography, which moves in a dutiful line from birth to fame, memoir narrows the lens, focusing on a time in the writer’s life that was unusually vivid, such as childhood or adolescence, or that was framed by war or travel or public service or some other special circumstance …” See William Zinsser’s ‘Introduction’ in Russel Baker and William Knowlton Zinsser’s edited Inventing the Truth, Op.cit., pp.14 and 15.

5. “… To be sure, no one ignores the fact that before becoming an object of historical knowledge, the event is the object of some narrative. In particular, the narratives left by contemporaries occupy a prime place among documentary sources.” See Paul Ricoeur, Kathlean Blamey and David Pellauer, Memory, History and Forgetting, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2006, p. 239.

6. ‘In 1973, Hayden White’s Metahistory inaugurated a critical movement that challenged historians to think of historiography as a kind of literature that is subject to new forms of literary analysis, especially structural and post structurall readings…According Hayden White, historians shape historical evidence into literary forms that make sense, have coherence or dramtic impact. The shaping of evidence is a fictive act, the construction of historical narrative a discursive act. Much of White’s work reinforces the central theme of the literariness of written history’, See Michael I.Carignan, Fiction as History or History as Fiction? George Eliot, Hayden White, and Nineteenth-Century Historicism.’ ( CLIO, Vol. 29, 2000) See http://www.questia.com. 

7. Sharon O'Brien forcibly communicates the idea that Memoir too tell the history and is thus related to history. Hence Memoir and Oral History “challenge time by retrieving something from the flood of the past and preserving it for the future.” Sharon O'Brien, “A short reflection on teaching memoir and oral history”, The Oral History Review, Vol. 25, No.1/2, Practice and Pedagogy: Oral History in the Class room, (Summer Autumn, 1998, p.113.

8. Katragadda Brothers namely, Raghuramayya and Madhusudhana Rao, Sri Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Matnuri Krishna Rao, Hanumanta Rao were important leaders of the Indian National Congress in colonial Andhra.

9. The sentence “All is Well” was normally shouted by the watchmen or the convicted warders who also perform the job of night watchman to announce to the head warder who was on rounds that every thing was well. The convicted warders unable to pronounce it correctly used to announce “Hall is Hell”, followed by the prisoners shouting that “Hall is Hell”. This was an incident of how the prisoners  defined their life during the imprisonment.

10. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay writes in the context of eastern India thus: “In the entire eastern part of India, from the early twentieth century onwards, untouchability in general and temple entry in particular had become important issue attracting public attention as well as collective action, both on the parts of the depressed classes themselves and also by their high-caste benefactors… In response to such actions all over India, the Calcutta Congress in 1928 resolved that it would be ‘the duty of all Congressmen, being Hindu, to do all they can to remove untouchability’, so that the untouchables could also be involved in the enterprise of nationalism.’ Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Caste, Protest and identity in colonial India: Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947, Routledge, 1997, pp.145.

11. ‘It was in 1930 that the system of classifying prisoners into three categories was introduced.  The Government formulated elaborate rules on the basis of which the classification should be made by courts in awarding classes to prisoners. It however happened that in 1932 the magistrate did not care to adhere to these rules with the result that several prisoners who deserved to be placed in class A or B were placed in class C  on the ground that that the data for determining the class were not available in all cases. Even persons like Dr. B. Pattabhi Seetharamayya were first placed in class C.’ See M. Venkatarangaiya (ed), The Freedom Struggle in Andhra Pradesh (Andhra), Vol. IV (1932-1947), Hyderabad, 1974, p.34.

12. “Women jumped into the struggle in large numbers on this as on the two previous occasions, and they became the special targets of attack by the police. As it was the policy of the authorities to keep low, the numbers sent to jails, they subjected women to special kinds of harsh treatment. It became the habit of the police to use abusive and filthy language against them. They were taken away in police vans and left in distant places away from the roadside.” See M. Venkataragaiya (ed), The Freedom Struggle in Andhra Pradesh (Andhra), Vol. IV (1932-1947), Hyderabad, 1974, p.33.

13. ‘The burning of Khadi clothes which were stripped from the wearers who were compelled to buy foreign cloth and wear it’, was an aspect of the colonial police brutality in the course of suppression of anti-colonial struggle of the people in Andhra. M. Venkataragaiya (ed), The Freedom Struggle in Andhra Pradesh (Andhra), Vol. IV (1932-1947), Hyderabad, 1974, p.301.

14. The Lucknow session was held in 1936 and not in 1935, where Jawaharlal Nehru was the president of the Indian National Congress.



 Alon Confino, (Dec., 1997), “Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method”, The American Historical Review, Vol.102, No. 5, pp. 1386-1403.


Barbara Walker, (July 2000), ‘On Reading Soviet Memoirs: A History of the “Contemporaries” Genre as an Institution of Russian Intellegentsia Culture from the 1790s to the 1970s’, The Russian Review 59, pp.327-52.


David Lowenthal, (Spring, 1997), “History and Memory”, The Publice Historian, Vol.19, No.2, pp. 30-39.


David Paul Nord, (Sep., 1998), ‘The Uses of Memory: An Introduction’, The Journal of American  History, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 409-410.


Jeffrey Andrew Barash, (Oct., 1997), ‘The Sources of Memory’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 707-717.


Jeffrey K. Olick, (Winter, 1998), ‘Introduction: Memory and the Nation: Continuities, Conflicts, and Transformations’, Social Science History, Vol. 22, No. 4, Special Issue: Memory and the Nation, pp. 377-387.


Kerwin Lee Klein, (Winter, 2000), ‘On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse’, Special Issue: Grounds for Remembering, Representations, No. 69, pp. 127-150.


Michael I.Carignan, (2000),    Fiction as History or History as Fiction? George Eliot, Hayden White, and Nineteenth-Century Historicism.’ (CLIO, Vol. 29,) See http://www.questia.com.


M. Venkatarangaiya (ed), (1974), The Freedom Struggle in Andhra Pradesh (Andhra), Vol. IV (1932-1947), Hyderabad.


Patrick Hutton, (Aug., 2000), ‘Recent Scholarship on Memory and History’, The History Teacher, Vol.33, No.4. pp. 533-548.  


Patrick H. Hutton, (1993), History as an art of memory, Hanover.


Paul Ricoeur, Kathlean Blamey and David Pellauer, (2006) Memory, History and Forgetting, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.  


Pierre Nora, (Spring, 1989), ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire’, Representations,No. 26, Special Issue: Memory and Counter-Memory. pp. 7-24.


Russel Baker and William Knowlton Zinsser, (eds), (1998),  Inventing the Truth: The Art and Craft of Memoir, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 


Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, (1997), Caste, Protest and identity in colonial India: Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947, Routledge. 


Sharon O'Brien, (Summer-Autumn), 1998), “A short reflection on teaching memoir and oral history”, The Oral History Review, Vol. 25, No.1/2, Practice and Pedagogy: Oral History in the Class room, pp.113-117.


Wulf Kansteiner, (May, 2002), ‘Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodical Critique of Collective Memory Studies’, History and Theory, Vol, 41, No, 2. pp. 179-197.


Yelamanchili Venkatappayya, (1985), Poor Life, Vijayawada.