The inevitability of Telangana
Kingshuk Nag
(Times Of India, 31-7-2013)
Following the integration of 550 princely dominions into the Indian Union in 1956, language was chosen as the basis on which the new states were created. The only exception was the Hindi heartland which was so vast that it was considered prudent to create several states.
Implicit in the creation of linguistic states was the belief that language is the basis of culture. If the same language was spoken across a state it meant that it represented homogenous culture. But this was a faulty belief to start with. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was created on a linguistic basis. The state was created much against the wishes of the people of Telangana. They did not want the region to be merged with the Andhra state (formed in 1953 after separation from Madras state) as they felt that Andhra's culture was different from Telangana.
They roughly spoke the same language but the Sanskritised Telugu of Andhra was different from the Telugu of Telangana that was influenced by Dakhni, an admixture of Urdu, Telugu, Marathi and Kannada. Besides, the cultures of the two people were different and so were their festivals and food habits.
Coupled with this cultural disconnect were the different endowments of the two people. Under the Madras presidency during British rule, the people of Andhra were educated in English, but the Nizam's state that governed the Telangana region used Urdu as the medium of instruction and administration.
As a result of the sophisticated irrigation systems the British introduced in the Andhra region farming prospered and farmers reaped surpluses which they reinvested. This led to a culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking among the wealthy. In sharp contrast, the feudal zamindari system, based on exploitation rather than enterprise, dominated the Nizam's territory.
The formation of Andhra Pradesh was the result of a merger between two regions — Telangana and Andhra. But it was in essence an unequal marriage. Since the Andhra region had no large cities (prior to their separation from Madras state, the Andhra Telugus treated Madras city as their own), the capital was located in the Nizam's Hyderabad, a sprawling, well-planned city.
After Andhra Pradesh's creation, the rush of migration from the hinterland to the capital also sparked an influx of Telugus from Andhra to Hyderabad. Two factors added to this impetus. First, with the downfall of the Nizam, a large section of the Muslim elites emigrated to Pakistan, Europe and even North America. They left behind vast, prime real estate that was purchased cheap by the rich Andhra folks.
Secondly, as English was the language of governance across other states, the authorities insisted that the positions of officers and clerks would be filled by importing qualified people from Andhra. The local folk, though cultured, had no knowledge of English. To add insult to injury, the migrants from Andhra looked down on Telangana's denizens — as though lack of English knowledge was a sign of their illiteracy and absence of culture an indicator of their indolence.
The first movement for Telangana, which began in 1969 on the Osmania University campus, continued intermittently for two years. Indira Gandhi crushed the Telangana cause with an iron hand. Although the movement fell flat the spirit of Telangana's people, spurred by narratives of economic exploitation, invasion of their land and cultural subjugation, stayed alive.
At the same time, the steady inflow of people from Andhra into Hyderabad and the overwhelmingly large population in that region aided in the narrative of domination. Politically, this meant that the Andhra region was more influential in terms of the number of legislators it sent to the assembly. The passage of time neither diminished the sentiment in Telangana nor caused the proliferation of a common culture.
The movement for Telangana's statehood revived with the creation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in 2000. This time, the political movement was spearheaded by the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS). The Cong-ress allied with the TRS in the 2004 elections to defeat the Telugu Desam Party which was in power for two terms and appeared invincible. But once in power, the Congress showed little resolve to create Telangana. By the time of the 2009 general elections, the Cong-ress had gone back on its promise.
The Congress's decision now to create Telangana arises out of political compulsions: non-fulfilment of its promise would mean certain rout in the region in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. There are renewed demands for the formation of new states and they will certainly gain momentum in the days to come. The pulls and pressures from various quarters will become increasingly strong, especially in the event of another coalition government at the Centre after the 2014 elections.
It is too far-fetched to assume any danger to the Union even if statehood demands elsewhere across the country are acceded to. If the United States can accommodate 50 states, surely the Indian federal system can run efficiently with 40. In a Union of multiple states, smaller states bring governments closer to the people and are more representative.
States' reorganisation in the First Republic ensured the division of territory on linguistic lines, creating in the process large states. It is now time to explore a Second Republic with numerous smaller states based on their economic viability. For sure, both Telangana and the residual Andhra Pradesh will flourish economically.
******************************************************************************
New dawn for Telangana
Times Of India, 1-8-2013
The Congress Working Committee’s historic resolution to create India’s
29th State — Telangana — by partitioning Andhra Pradesh redeems a pledge
the party made to the people of the region on the night of December 9,
2009. Compared to the Congress’s flip-flop earlier, its present resolve
to fast forward Telangana when the Lok Sabha election is barely 10
months away lays it open to the charge of political expediency. But what
matters now is that the people of Telangana are celebrating the
decision, which they see as crucial to the fulfilment of their social,
economic and political aspirations. As much as the formation of
Telangana is a source of joy to its people, the bifurcation is a cause
for despondency to those living in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
Though a separate Telangana State was first conceived in 1953, the fact
that the region spoke the same language as Rayalaseema and Coastal
Andhra became the basis for the formation of India’s first linguistic
State when a unified Andhra Pradesh was created in 1956. What followed,
unfortunately, was a saga of unkept promises, violation of the
Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956, and two violent agitations in 1969 and
1972. Slowly, a feeling built up among the people of Telangana that they
were being discriminated against in employment and education.
These wrongs will hopefully be set right when Telangana begins its tryst
with destiny soon. Without much ado, the Congress has cut the Gordian
knot that was Hyderabad’s status by deciding to make it the common
capital of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, for a period of 10 years.
Seemandhra will receive Central assistance for building a new capital,
and the classification of Polavaram — a massive multipurpose irrigation
venture — as a national project will help protect the “rump” Andhra
Pradesh’s interests. What is a source of worry, however, is that the CWC
resolution leaves slightly open-ended the question of whether Telangana
will have 10 districts or 12, with the addition of Kurnool and
Anantapur in Rayalaseema. There will be other practical difficulties too
but the political and civil society leadership of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh must shun regional chauvinism and violence and grasp with both
hands the great future that lies ahead of them. If the Congress has
opened a Pandora’s box by giving an impetus to similar demands for
statehood in Gorkhaland, Bodoland and elsewhere, the party must draw
lessons from its chequered handling of the Telangana question. Instead
of finding ad hoc solutions to crises as and when they erupt,
serious thought must be given to the creation of a second States
Reorganisation Commission that will take a structural approach to the
problem.
**********************************************************************
Divide bigger states for better administration
(New Indin Express, 2013 August 1)
The Telangana bullet had to be bitten someday and the Congress
finally did after years of procrastination. Of course, the 29th state of
the Indian Union is still a long way off, given the legal and other
constitutional procedures and, therefore, protagonists of Telangana
statehood have rightly chosen to defer celebrations until the bill is
finally passed by Parliament. In the process, several concerns on both
sides of the divide — sharing of water, power and Hyderabad as a joint
capital for 10 years, building a new capital for the Andhra State and
its funding and educational facilities — have to be addressed, if the
political decision has to translate into a constitutional one.
Otherwise, the impediments in going through the legislative process will
be difficult to cross and the repercussions of any repeat of the
December 2009 somersault are bound to be disastrous this time round.
Many
argue that the Congress has chosen to divide Andhra Pradesh, created on
linguistic basis along with other states, for political compulsions.
With its fortunes sliding rapidly in the state, thanks to the raging
Telangana sentiment in one region and the rise of YS Jagan Mohan Reddy
in Andhra-Rayalaseema, there was no option for the Congress but to
divide AP. This would enable it to reap political dividends in Telangana
and confine the Jagan juggernaut to Andhra. It could diminish Jagan’s
influence even further due to the significant changes expected in caste
and other social dynamics post-division. Just as this argument could be
right, what cannot be denied is that the Telangana statehood demand has a
history of over 50 years and had to be met at some point as all the
constitutional guarantees provided to the region were nullified by
successive governments. As far as the new Telangana state is concerned,
the job is only half done. Millions of people of Telangana have been
dreaming of better days if a state is given and it is imperative that
those guiding it bear this in mind when they embark upon the task of
reconstruction, making sure that Dalits, tribals and other weaker
sections who have solidly backed the movement become a part of the
political process in the real sense.
On a national level, though,
the decision in favour of Telangana is bound to cause a ripple effect
even as it demolishes the old theory that states should be formed only
on linguistic basis. It is important to point out here what the
architect of the Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar, said: “While one State
should have one language, there can be two separate states for those
speaking one language depending on the need for efficient
administration, geographical and historical needs/aspirations of the
local people.” Viewed in this context, formation of new States, subject
to viability, should be considered thus: a) It’s a part of the process
of decentralisation which is important in ensuring greater access to
power for the poor; b) principles of political science and public
administration suggest that the power centre should be nearer to the
people; and c) experience over the past 60 years has shown that quite a
few states have hinterlands which are suffering from neglect.
On
any of the parameters stated above, it will be difficult to brush aside
the demands for division of UP, Maharashtra and West Bengal. The ongoing
72-hour strike for a separate Gorkhaland is only going to gain
momentum. Likewise, the demand for a separate Vidharbha comprising 11
districts of Maharashtra is as old as Telangana. It cannot be denied
that the region is economically distressed and sentimentally quite
different from the rest of Maharashtra with which it was forced to
merge, contrary to the Fazal Ali States Reorganisation Commission’s
recommendation. So is the case with UP, a part of which, Bundelkhand,
existed till 1956 before it was abolished. With 75 districts and 200
million population, is it possible to meet the basic tenet of a
democratic structure — “constant communication between people and
government”? It will be wiser for the Centre to pay attention to
addressing the growing demands for smaller states before the situation
spins out of control. It will not do any harm to the federal structure,
rather it will only be strengthened.
