Hyderabad, August 07: The decision to create a separate State has never been a smooth affair. Many factors, often conflicting, give rise to the demand. The whole issue is complicated even at the start, but gets messier as it grows into a popular movement.
Expert opinion differs about the relative advantages or disadvantages of creating small States. But the decision on the many previous demands was invariably taken on political consideration. The size of a State had little to do with the decision. Today, there are relatively well-administered small States and also badly-administered small States. The same thing can also be said about large States.
The factors that fuel the demand for a separate State are many. In the book, Battleground Telangana: Chronicle of an Agitation, author Kingshuk Nag has not only explained various aspects of the complex problem, but also given its brief history for better understanding of the issue. “Telangana has an old history of struggle and defiance against central rule,” says Nag. He traces this history of struggle and defiance from the Kakitya dynasty in the 11th century.
It is a timely publication as Hyderabad has literally turned into a battleground. The issue is getting serious by the day and not taking any decision is no longer a wise option. In this book, Nag has combined his journalistic skills with meticulous research. The merger of the erstwhile Hyderabad State into Andhra Pradesh in 1956 against the wishes of the people of the State sowed the seed of this struggle, which is now threatening to degenerate into violence and chaos. The people of the Telangana region in addition to loss of their distinct identity feared discrimination in the much larger State. They were neglected under the Nizam’s rule. They had hoped that in independent India they would get a better deal. Instead, the “more enterprising and better educated migrants from the Andhra region” pushed them further down. “Prosperity and opportunities have eluded them in life.” They hope for more jobs and prosperity in the separate Telangana State.
Even before the merger of the Hyderabad State into Andhra Pradesh, the Fazal Ali Commission appointed in 1953 noted that “a separate Telangana could well be a stable and viable unit”. The Nizam’s rule was the epitome of tyranny and corruption, making the people suffer from extreme poverty and backwardness. The merger of the State into Andhra in 1956 was the merger of “two intrinsically unequal people”. The region felt even more discriminated in the new State. The riots over this issue led to the resignation of Chief Minister Brahmananda Reddy in June 1969. The movement, however, fizzled out in the later years.
Telangana is culturally different from the rest of Andhra. But as the author says, “the movement has gathered steam on the issue of economic backwardness rather than cultural divergence”. The tragedy of this region is that its development was also neglected by the three Chief Ministers who came from Telangana that include PV Narasimha Rao and Chenna Reddy. They were too busy pursuing their personal agenda to pay much attention to the region. Faulty agriculture policies have further contributed to its backwardness. “Telangana is a semi-arid area, but the Government policies promote cultivation of paddy and sugar cane in line with the cropping patterns in the Andhra area,” says the author.
It is difficult to disagree with Nag when he says that the Srikrishna report has only confirmed the suspicion of the people of Telangana that the Centre was not serious about the issue. Hyderabad is located in the heart of Telangana and is historically part of this region. Telangana activists, therefore, are against a Chandigarh-like proposal for Hyderabad. The Hong Kong model where “one country, two systems” has been working well deserves serious consideration.
Nag also tells us about a land scam in Hyderabad that has further inflamed the already difficult situation. Emaar MGF, which has been accused of malpractices in the Commonwealth Games, is said to be “gifted away for a song” 535 acres of land in Hyderabad by corrupt politicians, thus depriving the people of Telangana funds for development. When it was ‘discovered’ in August 2010 that the Government equity in the commercial rights of the venture had been diluted to almost negligible level, it caused an outrage among the people of Telangana. The feeling that the “resources of their Hyderabad were being exploited by migrants from coastal Andhra” became stronger. Today, polarisation is complete in Andhra Pradesh.
Caste has also played a prominent role, though the traditional rivalry between the Kammas and the Reddys in Andhra Pradesh has not been to the advantage of the Telangana movement. “Notwithstanding the paeans sung for the robustness of Indian democracy, politics and political parties are often manifestations of the interests and aspirations of caste groups”. The Kammas oppose the proposal, though the Reddys are split. As for the other backward castes like Gouds, Gollas, Padmashalis, they support the cause of separate Telangana.
Unfortunately for the Centre, it has allowed the situation to reach a stage where maintaining status quo is not an option. K Chandrashekar Rao’s fast and subsequent P Chidambaram’s statement on December 9, 2009, declaring that “the process of forming a separate Telangana will be initiated and appropriate resolution passed in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly” are two important watersheds in this long history of struggle for a separate State. The Centre’s going back on this declaration has further infuriated the people. It is difficult for the Union Government to escape responsibility because under Article 3 of the Constitution, only Parliament is authorised to take the decision, in consultation with a State legislature.
The Telangana issue is more complicated than similar demands in the past. This book will help understand why it is so difficult for the Centre to take any decision on the issue.
–Agencies