The inevitability of Telangana

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.