36 SOCIAL SCIENTIST mittees of the APCSP. Available evidence also suggests that by the end of 1937, the Executive-Committee of the APCSP was dominated by the rommunists.^ Three points need to be noted here. Firstly, from the very beginning the left movement in Andhra was subjected to divergent pulls. People and parties with different ideologies were attempting to control it. Both the communists and non-communists, viz., the Congress socialists wanted to capture the APCSP and impose their leadership on it. Secondly, the growing influence of the communists inside the party caused concern to the right-wing led by V. Jaggam Raju and B. Rangasai. For instance, when the communists decided to organise som^ district conferences under the presidentship of S.A. Dange, B. Rangasai who was the joint secretary resigned from the party in protest. The socialists did not like the idea of inviting the communists from other parts of India. They openly criticised the Andhra tour of Dange. In 1936, M.R. Masani, the general secretary of the AICSP unsuccessfully tried to bring about reconciliation between the two • factions. Thirdly, despite the opposition of the right-wing, the communists successfully maintained their leadership over the agricultural labour association, the peasant organisations, the labour unions and the youth leagues. As we shall see later, the communists indeed dominated th^ working class organisations in all the Telugu districts of the Madras Presidency. By late 1930s, majority of the district Kisan Sabhas >vere under their exclusive control. In order to propagate the ideals of socialism the ten organised "Summer Schools of Politics and Economics" and taught Marxism. In 1937, (lie first "well attended" school was started by Kameswar Rao "a Russian trained communist" at Kothapatam (Guntur), where 'revolutionary socialism' was being taught.<( The basic function of the schools was to recruit local party cadre and expand the organisation. The government viewed the Kothapatam school as "highly dangerous" and decided "to take drastic action".'" Therefore, within a short period of time they banned the school and declared it an "illegal and unlawful association". They arrested and imprisoned the members of the school. The banning of the school led to widespread protest meetings throughout Andhra. It was condemned as an "unwarranted attack on civil liberties".'l Though all left organisations and local Congress committees protested against the ban and arrests, the Congress leadership in Andhra remained silent ^n the APCC meeting there was strong opposition (led by T. Prakasam) to the proposal that Congress should defend the accused and it was resolved "to disapprove the=ac^on of the school in disobeying the ban". Thus, there was a considerable difference of opinion between the Congress leadership and the left-wing/within the party regarding the ban. It signalled the beginning of a confrontatidn between the 'left* and the Congress right-wing. By disapproving of the school they (the Congress leaders) acted contrary to the Karachi resolution which guaranteed "freedom of speech, freeqom of association and combination". However, hostility between the conservative Cor^ress leadership and the "left5 increased during the Con-