(Dr. Velchala Kondal Rao) Telangana State is at last officially on cards after a prolonged nonviolent battle waged by the Telangana people for more than fifty years since the formation of Andhra Pradesh. (silent battle by suffering innumerous humiliations, discriminations, injustices for more than 50 years and vehement, vocal and vociferous but non violent battle for more than ten years.)
The people of Telangana suffered many losses of lives, properties and opportunities in the course of a long drawn out struggle for “restoration” of its erstwhile status before its amalgamation with the then Andhra state carved out of the erstwhile composite Madras state.
It is worth noting that they were only asking for what was already existing in the name of Telangana and nothing more nothing less. The demand for Telangana therefore as unlike the demands for the creation of new states elsewhere is not a demand for a new state but for the state which had already existed at one time. The demand for the formation of it is also a demand for what was already recommended by the then States Reorganisation Commission, headed by no less a person than Justice Fazal Ali. (As it was already recommended by the earlier States Reorganisation Commission, it makes no sense to refer it again to another such Commission as is being asked for by some leaders in Andhra rather mischievously only to complicate and prolong the formation of Telangana).
No less a person than Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru himself had left the option to the people of Telangana to seek a divorce if the marriage was frustrated by the hegemonic and authoritarian attitudes of the Andhra leaders later.
The Andhra leadership tried to mess up the issue by stating that HYDERABAD was very much developed by the Andhra people over a period of time and hence, they have to have a say over it. This again is not true, as Hyderabad was always treated as a part of Telangana, and the revenue pertaining to Telangana was spent on the development of the city. Much of the development in Hyderabad had already happened over a period of more than five centuries for which the people of Telangana had made many sacrifices by foregoing many facilities and opportunities.
Granting that some more development has been made after the formation of Andhra Pradesh, (mostly in and around the colonies where the Andhras have settled and at Madhapur and a few other areas where also many bigwigs from Andhra region have been allotted large areas either on long lease or at a cheap rate in the name of encouraging the industries) one would like to ask the Andhra leaders as to what had happened to their investments in Madras when it was bifurcated and what had happened to their investments in Bellary and Behrampur when they were separated from Andhra and merged into Karnataka and Orissa. Why did they not raise the investment issues which they are raising now with reference to Hyderabad city? Is it also not true that lands worth more than 50,000 crores belonging to Hyderabad city itself have been sold and spent on the so called development of which Andhra leaders talk again and again as if they are their own?
One would like to ask them whether the same kind of pleas made by Gujaratees for Bombay earlier have been conceded? Have the Andhras made more contribution to the development of Hyderabad than what they had made for the development of Madras? Or have they made more contribution to the development of Hyderabad than what the Gujaratees had made to the development of Bombay? Why then they make all kinds of untenable demands when the Telangana is agreed to be formed?
Of all the demands, the most ridiculous and laughable demand being made by the Andhra leaders is for some legal and constitutional safeguards for Andhra people living in Hyderabad, and for some such assurances for the safety and security of their assets and properties. Can that be legally and constitutionally done? Has that been done anywhere else in India earlier? Do they mean to say that the people of Andhra should be given dual citizenship or extra citizenship rights in Hyderabad. Are we living in primitive times to ask for such provisions? Why did they not ask for the same safeguards elsewhere in Madras, Bellary or Behrampur? After all there too many Andhras live and have properties. How about those Andhras who are living in Delhi, Kolkatta, Bengaluru and elsewhere? Do they mean that Telangana people are unfair and all others are fair? Do all others who have been living here in Hyderabad for centuries feel the same way?
As far as safeguarding minority (Muslims) interests are concerned, on any day, Telangana Hindus and Muslims share the same “Tahzeeb (culture) and are closer to each other to think well of each other than the Hindus and Muslims in Andhra area. In fact, most of the Muslims in Andhra area mostly speak Telugu than Urdu, unlike the Muslims of Telangana. Most of the Telugus in Telangana understand Urdu better than the Telugus in Andhra area. Thus language wise, culture wise the Muslims and the Hindus of Telangana are on any day closer to each other to live together amiably and amicably as they have lived for centuries. They have common emotional, psychological, sentimental, historical and secular factors which bind and which bound them together for over 500 years. So much so, they have shared the pleasures and pains together on festivals like Ramzaan, Moharrum, Holi and Dussera as if they belong to both. Hindus consider many “piaghambars” of Muslims as if they are their own and visit them on important occassions. Andhra leaders should therefore realise that the bonds between Telangana Muslims and Hindus are very strong which they can’t disturb do and say what they may to divide them.
The fact remains that the Andhra leaders and the successive Andhra governments have not done anything for emotional and psychological integration of Andhra and Telangana people. They therefore feel that since they have not done anything in that direction, there can be a sort of a discrimination after the formation. But for that they must understand the history of Telanganites that they have always been liberal, generous and magnanimous towards one and all, and they have always been most adjusting, accommodating and secular. History has proved it. It is in the “Hyderabadiyath” and also in “Telanganiyath”.
Let us therefore bury the past as a bad dream and live together befriending each other realising that we are all the citizens of the same country, nothing more, nothing less. Let us bury the hatchet after the formation of the Telangana state. Let us not forget that we have more or less a common language, and more or less a common culture which should help us to come together emotionally if not today some day however late and later be that be when the emotions on both the sides cool down.
Our Andhra Brethren should understand that “Aikyatha” should precede “Samaikyatha”. If ab initio there is no “Aikyatha” between the people, how can there be “Samaikyatha” which means the two way agreement and understanding? For “Aikyatha” or “Samaikyatha”, the fundamental condition is emotional and psychological integration which has not happened and which is the basic reason for the call for separation.
So far as all other issues which are being raised like the division of river waters, assets, liabilities etc. there are already all India norms in that regard which are applicable and are already applied to other states which would automatically hold good for the Telangana and Andhra States also when they are separately constituted.
To say as being said that Telangana state would lead to the demand for the formation of some other states in the country is to forget that in the case of Telangana what is being done is only a “restoration” but not “bifurcation”, but in the case of other sates it would amount to bifurcation, separation. Central government can always say that the formation of Telangana differs from the formation of all other states to be formed elsewhere in India. It is very easy for it to differentiate and deal with the argument. This, apart from the justification for separation that anyone can make in the name of smaller states to be carved out of the over grown and unwieldy states.
The issues of employees after the formation of the new state can also be dealt with as has been done elsewhere in similar situations. Have they not been tackled and solved when Madras was bifurcated?
The problem pertaining to Naxalities can be minimised. It can even be eliminated as the new state has enough resources to concentrate on backward, rural and tribal areas. The Naxalite problem in fact is not a political but an economic problem which is being tackled at present as a political problem rather wrongly.
Let it be realised by Andhra leaders and also the people being provoked by them, that the problems and issues of separation can’t be tackled here and now overnight. That takes some time as it has happened in such cases elsewhere. For that, the government of India has already constituted many official comities to sort out them, amicably No one elsewhere has said as is being said here that separation should happen only after the issues arising out of separation are solved. That is clearly a mischievous proposition only to stall or delay the formation of Telangana. The intention is clearly not to help to solve the issue but to complicate and prolong. The malevolent design is so very clear, of which the Telangana leaders as well as the Central leaders should be very much alert to handle it firmly and decisively by citing the examples of other states which were formed earlier, and by telling the representing that the Andhra State can’t be treated differently under any circumstances, and that the methods of coercion that they are adopting won’t help.
(Author is the Convener of Telanga Cultural Forum)