Hyderabad needs Solomon’s justice

Seemandhras are again donning the role of the jealous mother and Delhi’s Solomons should not cut the ‘child’ into two pieces even for a short period.

The present agitation for Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh and past agitation for Madras during the early 1950s reminds one of the story of King Solomon’s Justice in a dispute between two women claiming a child. When a mother lost her child accidentally, she had exchanged the child from another mother living in the same house to appear that the child was hers. The other woman was shocked. Both approached King Solomon, claiming the son and alleging that the dead child belonged to the other. After deliberation, the King declared that only one fair solution was available: that the living son must be cut into two and each woman receive half of the child. One woman cried out and said: “Let the child go to the other woman and it’s enough if the child is alive”. The other woman, a liar, shouted: ‘Divide it; it shall be neither mine nor yours’. The story goes on to say that the king declared the first woman as the true mother and gave her the baby. Solomon was appreciated throughout Israel for his profound wisdom and the story remained a great example of doing justice. If Hyderabad is the ‘child’ today, Madras was so in the early 1950s. Seemandhras then and now want the capital to be a Union Territory or a joint capital for both the States.

Recently AN Venkatachalapathi, a writer, brought out the historical aspects about Madras when Andhra State was formed and Madras was sought to be the joint capital for 10 years. Like Hyderabad, Madras was the bone of contention in the late 1940s and 1950s. Though the Telugu-speaking population was just 15 per cent in Madras (as against 70 pc of Tamilians as per 1931 census) Telugu persons were highly visible. B Pattabhi Seetaramayya wrote extensively in The Hindu, demanding separate Province and rights over Madras. The Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, formed during the All India Congress session in 1920, wanted Madras within its jurisdiction. In November 1949 the Congress Working Committee recommended the formation of a separate Andhra State but excluded Madras. Those who agitated for an Andhra province demanded Madras and because of that formation of Telugu State was delayed, leading to loss of lives in agitation. The Madras Cabinet approved a report of the Partition Committee but Tanguturi Prakasam dissented on the point that Madras should continue as the capital of Andhra until a new capital was ready. Though the Union Government was ready to grant a separate State, agitation for Madras continued for a long time.

While there was a strong dividing line between Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema over the new capital for Andhra State, a demand for making Madras a Chief Commissioner’s province under the control of the Union Government or declaring Madras as the Joint Capital with Union Territory status emerged.

After the 1952 General Elections, Rajaji formed a Congress Government and supported the formation of Andhra State without Madras. Though Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, V V Giri, and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan pressurised the Union to appoint a commission or go in for plebiscite, Nehru ruled it out. Meanwhile, Potti Sreeramulu died in satyagraha fast on December 15, 1952, leading to large-scale violence in Andhra. Undeterred by it, Nehru formed the Justice K N Wanchoo Committee, which reported in February 1953 favouring creation of Andhra State with a recommendation that until a new capital was built the Andhra government could be accommodated in Madras.

Seemandhras wanted to claim Madras fully or deny it to Tamilians, as Gujaratis did to Marathis for Bombay.

At that time, a popular journalist Kalki pointed out possible dangers of Madras being a temporary capital for Andhra also, saying: This move could pave the way for influx of excited agitators from outside, leading to violence triggering police action. The ensuing loss of lives would lead to further claims on the ground that the soil of Madras had been sanctified by the blood of martyrs. Soon the city would be termed ‘a disputed area’ and would lead to unending controversy and agitation, like Kashmir’.

Rajaji opposed this move and threatened to resign to convince that it would result in unseemly agitation, acrimonious controversies and administrative conflicts. Nehru was convinced. That firm decision resolved the issue forever. In contrast, the Congress party’s indecision made Chandigarh burn as permanent status of UT to that city resulted in cutting the child into two pieces and distributing half city to either State without leaving any scope for life and development along with identity as a capital of either.

Now it is the turn of Hyderabad. Seemandhras are again donning the role of the jealous mother and Delhi’s Solomons should not cut the ‘child’ into two pieces even for a short period.

As apprehended by A N Venkatachalapathi, Hyderabad is vulnerable to violence. Sharing two pieces of Hyderabad will kill peace in this historical city. After declaring it as UT, Bombay was given back to Maharashtra but not before the death of agitators. Chandigarh is still struggling while two States have no capital of their own. The Centre is trying to make Hyderabad another Delhi, using Article 258A to give crucial administrative powers over Hyderabad to Delhi rulers. The Union should learn the lesson of Madras to resolve the problem of Hyderabad.