Hyderabad, April 15: THE 8.5 crore people of Andhra Pradesh have evolved as a separate race, with a glorious history, inimitable culture, proud heritage and a common destiny.
Justifiably calling themselves a race, the Telugus have had a common language, history, culture, literature, customs and ways of living since time immemorial. Contrary to these natural phenomena, some artificial movements have raised their ugly heads in 1969 and 1972 and now again. This is only because of narrow-minded, selfish, opportunistic and unemployed political leaders. Today, Telangana has become a hostage in the hands of a few self-centred separatists. It has been the most abused issue in the country.
The separatists are following the Panchatantra formula: tell a lie and keep repeating it, then the people will eventually come to believe it. They are also following in the footsteps of Adolph Hitler’s strategy: `tell a lie often enough, loud enough and long enough, and people will believe you’.
We are greatly indebted to the Srikrishna Committee for giving us a platform to put our point of view in the right perspective. Even before the committee started full-fledged work, the separatists gave up their claim of underdevelopment and switched their focus to self-rule and self-respect as grounds for bifurcation of the state. As far as self-respect is concerned, it is too vague an idea. Any plea in this regard should be construed as a political game to whip up emotions.
To thoroughly expose the claims of separatists, the stances of all parties and the views of political leaders are presented here for the kind perusal of the committee.
Congress: The party’s stand on separate Telangana demand has been clear from the beginning and has always been consistent. After the BJP-led NDA Government created three new states in 2000, Congress legislators from Telangana met Congress president Sonia Gandhi and represented to her about the need for a separate Telangana.
The party felt that the matter could at best be addressed by another States Reorganisation Commission to look into all the issues involved instead of dealing with them on a piecemeal basis. The Congress Working Committee in 2001 discussed the issue and adopted a resolution for constituting the second SRC to look into the issue of smaller states.
In the meantime, the Congress and the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) came to a pre-poll understanding and the party got an agreement signed by the TRS accepting a second SRC as a stipulation for an electoral alliance. The agreement was signed by the then TRS leader A Narendra.
The Congress, in its election manifesto for the state elections, also mentioned the party’s stand favouring a second SRC. Later, the issue also figured in the speech of the President to a joint session of Parliament on June 7, 2004. “The Government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana state at an appropriate time after due consultations,” said the President.
Telugu Desam Party: TDP founder president N T Rama Rao dedicated his life to the integration of the Telugus.
However, after successive defeats in elections since 2004, the TDP changed its stance for electoral gains. Accordingly in 2009, the party submitted a letter to the Pranab Mukherjee Committee on Telangana expressing their support for a separate state. Despite this, the party once again lost the elections in 2009, which repudiated its stand for a separate Telangana.
Telangana Rashtra Samithi: The TRS, which came into existence in 2001 for the purpose of creating a separate state, forged an electoral alliance with the Congress. The party diluted its stand to the extent of agreeing to a second SRC. The TRS even forged an unholy alliance with the CPM, although the latter party is totally against the creation of a Telangana state. It can be reasonably concluded that electoral gains, rather than the Telangana issue, are paramount for the TRS.
Bharatiya Janata Party: The party passed a separate Telangana resolution at its Kakinada conclave in 1998 but dumped the issue later in order to get the support of TDP MPs. The party has even decided against submitting its report to the Srikrishna Committee.
Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM): This party has always stood for a united Andhra Pradesh. Formation of a Telangana state will not be in the interest of Muslims at all. The Majlis thinks that it will inevitably result in the strenthening of its adversaries. “People who want Telangana should go to Warangal, and leave Hyderabad to us,” said the then MIM president Sultan Salauddin Owaisi.
Communist Party of India – Marxist: The CPM has always maintained a consistent stand on the united Andhra Pradesh issue. They were instrumental in the merger of the Telangana and Andhra in 1956 and they waged lone battles for a united AP in 1969 and 1972.
Communist Party of India: Till 2004, the CPI was a staunch supporter of an integrated state. It changed its stand later for electoral gains.
Praja Rajyam Party: The PRP fought the 2009 election with the promise of a `Samajika Telangana’. However, the party could get only two Assembly seats in the region (out of 119 constituencies). After the Centre’s statement on Dec.
9, 2009 and the subsequent public outcry, the PRP changed its stand in support of a united Andhra Pradesh. PRP chief Chiranjeevi also resigned from the state Assembly to demonstrate his solidarity with the cause.
We must also recall the views of the late B R Ambedkar that the Andhra areas of Hyderabad state (Telangana) must be culled and merged in the Andhra state and the Andhra historical city of Warangal should be the joint capital of the Andhras. Moreover, Union minister S Jaipal Reddy has said that there would be “chaos with Telangana’’.
Besides, almost all leaders of Greater Hyderabad are in favour of a united Andhra Pradesh. They say that they would need a separate Greater Hyderabad state if there is a division of the state. In successive elections Telanganites have rejected the separate statehood demand. Only a marginal section of the people are interested in it. Spreading hatred against a particular section of the people is untenable.
Today, it may be against the people of one region. Tomorrow, it may be the turn of other states/ groups/ religions/ castes/ north Indians, south Indians, etc.
–Agencies