Page:Gurujadalu English.djvu/305



[''N.B. The resolutions passed by the Committee at its sittings of the 2nd of August and the 6th of September were numbered separately. The report of the majority of the Sub-Committee quotes numbers without specifying dates; but it is evident that the numbers refer only to the resolutions passed on 6th September''].

1. I dissent from the views of the majority of the SubCommittee consisting of Messrs. Vedam Venkataraya Sastry and K. V. Lakshmana Row. They stuck to the position which they had all along occupied and showed no disposition to come to any common understanding with the Modern School.

2. An examination of the lists, which they prepared, and the covering report clearly show that far from entering into the spirit of the second resolution, they tried to get behind it. The report reopens discussion on the principle of the resolution, lays down conclusions at variance with it, and winds up with an appeal in favour of a school of prose with which Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row may be particularly identified as the editor of the Vijnanachandrika series.

3. The lists were drawn up not in accordance with the amendment proposed by Prof. M. Ranga Chariar, accepted by me as proposer of the resolution, and passed by a majority of the committee, but in accordance practically with an amendment proposed by Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu and seconded by Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row, which was lost. The latter amendment was “that the words ‘in standard literary Telugu’ be inserted between the గురుజాడలు