Division is a short-sighted policy

The concerns of poor peasants, labourers in the Telangana region, for that matter in whole of the country, are on how to bring food to table for their families and hungry children, not a separate state

Congress President Sonia Gandhi has finally reversed the stand taken by her mother-in-law the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on Telangana by deciding to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh. The Congress, it appears, has not taken into account the political, social and economic ramifications for the people of AP in particular, and the country in general. Though the decision was endorsed by the Congress Working Committee and UPA allies at a coordination committee meeting, it is Congress which is spearheading the division under the guidance of Sonia Gandhi. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who had opposed bifurcation in the past, has not explained why he has changed his position now.

Procedurally, the Centre seems to ignore previous norms under which new states have been created. Generally, state legislatures have to approve resolutions by a two-thirds vote favoring bifurcation. But in the case of AP, the Centre has said the vote is not required – just a formality -- and that Parliament on its own can create a new state. The Congress has adopted this ‘flexible’ approach realizing that a resolution favouring bifurcation will not be approved in AP Legislature.

The central leadership should have assessed the Telangana agitation whether it was a genuine mass movement or one launched by self-seeking political leaders whose primary objective might have been to gain political power in a separate state in the name of people. The Centre should have investigated the track record of some of the Telangana leaders in serving people, especially the poor, Dalits and Muslims, as ministers, MLAs and MPS. It seems the upper castes dominated by Reddys who enjoy a disproportionate power in relation to their number in the region (Reddys account for about 6-7 % of the population) are leading the movement.

One seldom hears about credible Dalit, Muslim and Christian leaders coming strongly in support of Telangana movement although one stirs it up by using regional sentiments. These are the communities who are at the lower rung of the social hierarchy and who continue to suffer blatant discrimination and oppression in the hands of upper castes.

The concerns of poor peasants, labourers in the Telangana region, for that matter in whole of the country, are on how to bring food to table for their families and hungry children, not a separate state. In fact, they may not have any notion of what a separate state may bring to them. Most of the Telangana leaders are rich and they can afford to lead the movement in pursuit of power although a few of them may be genuine in their cause and committed to the uplift of the poor and downtrodden. In fact, one may suspect that the Telangana leaders, in pursuit of their selfish interests, may have incited hundreds of gullible college students into committing suicide by injecting into them an emotional regional sub-nationalism.

To make it look like a mass movement, cynically, these leaders and their supporters have cowed down an appreciable percentage of integrationists in Telangana into silence by threats of harm and ostracism. Given the rampant corruption and criminality that many Indian politicians, including those in Telangana, are associated with, many citizens in AP are disgusted with them.

If one looks at the development of Telangana region objectively, none could deny that it has developed tangibly but not under the chief ministers of Telangana region such as PV Narasimha Rao, M Channa Reddy, T Anjaiah and Jalagam Vengal Rao; but, ironically, under chief ministers such as NT Rama Rao, N Chandrababu Naidu, YS Rajasekhar Reddy and Kiran Kumar Reddy who happened to have come from coastal-Rayalaseema regions. Therefore, it debunks the argument that the leadership from ones region would only ensure one’s region development and social improvement.

Compared to areas under Nizam State such as Marathwada and other parts that were merged with the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka, Telangana has done much better in united AP. Today, Karimnagar has become the largest rice producing district symbolizing an example of progress in the region in the united AP.

In December 2010, the Srikrishna Committee appointed by the Centre, submitted six recommendations to help resolve the Telangana tangle of which two of them were to retain the unity of the state including the creation of a regional council to develop Telangana. What happened to its recommendations? Why did not the Manmohan government submit it to the Parliament for consideration? The Congress decision to bifurcate the state may potentially produce some of the following serious consequences.

It has opened a Pandora’s Box: The AP bifurcation decision has spontaneously triggered similar demands in 20 states, including Rayalaseema. If Telangana state becomes a reality, the demand of those people who are living in backward regions will intensify for their own separate states. Like the Telangana separatists, they may start similar agitations to force the Centre to concede their demands. It will not only plunge the country into long periods of chaos and political instability, but also in a bad light globally.

Central Government has better things to do: Addressing the problems of poverty, illiteracy, infrastructure, lack of housing for the poor, health care, persistent discrimination and oppression of the Dalits, corruption and security problems with Pakistan and China are more important than responding to a sub-nationalism driven personal interests of certain leaders.

Intense bitterness: Anti-Andhra and a demagoguery statements by some Telangana leaders have created anger, anxiety, despair and uncertainty among Andhra people who are now demonstrating against bifurcation and in favour of Samaikyandhra state. How can people from Andhra living in Hyderabad be designated as illegal when they are Indian citizens with every right to settle and live as they wish anywhere? The cultural enrichment the united AP has brought to Telangana is threatened and disrupted.

A death knell for Congress: Congress has lost its credibility in Andhra region for good. It seems it has made a grievous mistake by undercutting its safe region by the bifurcation decision. On the other hand, Reddys who wield enormous influence in Telangana will be dominating in a new Telangana state. Reddy power is overwhelming as the community members have resources, wealth and education to get elected to state and central legislatures and thus retain power. However, it does not mean there are no Reddys who are dedicated to serving the poor and downtrodden, though their number is miniscule.

Reddy domination: In a new Telangana state, Reddys will continue to use their resources and assets to gain political power in order to protect their economic interests at the expense of lower classes and Dalits who constitute bulk of the population. But this power, dominated by Reddys as has been the case in the past, may intensify the armed struggle of Naxalites to force a radical change in the existing economic and social system being preserved by men in the entrenched hierarchal social and caste system. Most of the Naxalites come from Dalits and Scheduled Tribes who continue to suffer economically and socially. If the uprising increases as predicted, the State and the Center may have to use their resources to put it down which is not easy. As it is, Naxalism has spread to nearly 22 states including the newly formed Jharkhand, Utterakhand and Chattisgarh. This proves a smaller state does not automatically produce development and social justice.

(The writer is a Professor of Political Science at Mcneese State University, Lake Charles, LA, USA. He grew up in Telangana)

Hyderabad – Not a Nawabi City any more

It was only after the Hyderabad State was disintegrated to put an end to trouble spots in the heart of the country, politicians in the districts began saying it is Telangana

It should be noted that the complexion of Hyderabad during the last 57 years as the Capital of Andhra Pradesh has changed a lot. It is no longer a Nizam Nawabi City of 1948. During his time, the Nizam wanted to present the city as a show piece to the world. He invited many outsiders like Sir Mirza Ismail, Sir Akbar Hydari and Mokshagundam Visweswarayya of Mysore to beautify the City, expecting he would be an independent ruler.

In those days, there was no trace of “Telangana”, because it never existed, it was Hyderabad Deccan. It was only after the Hyderabad State was disintegrated to put an end to trouble spots in the heart of the country, politicians in the districts began saying it is Telangana.

They tried to establish their leadership as it was imminent that these districts were to be tagged to the next door Andhra State. Some of these leaders tried to ‘kushamath’ with the State leadership. There was a sort of competition to get into their good books for obtaining positions in the government. Some of the leaders brought Andhra rebel leaders like Prof. NG Ranga to help their purpose.

Among these leaders, KV Ranga Reddy and M Chenna Reddy were ambitious. When their tactics did not work, they raised the slogan of separate Telangana. When Sanjiva Reddy was Chief Minister he offered Home Ministry to K V Ranga Reddy; but he coolly accepted forgetting his separate Telangana demand.

When D Sanjivaiah, the first Harijan Chief Minister in India, in his good sense wanted to implement the Gentlemen’s Agreement signed during the formation of Andhra Pradesh, made KV Ranga Reddy the Deputy Chief Minister of the state.

Later in the AP Cabinet No 5, Marri Chenna Reddy became Finance Minister under Kasu Brahmananda Reddy. Afterwards, so many Telangana bigwigs continued to be ministers. It is also pertinent to know that all the Telangana ministers were assigned important portfolios like Finance, Planning, Law, Endowments, Labour, Revenue, Irrigation and Agriculture and none of them ever complained that their voice was being stifled in the Cabinet or otherwise.

All the Chief Ministers, including PV Narasimha Rao, have concentrated on developing Hyderabad City into a great one. They located all the Central offices, defence labs, universities & institutes, and health centres in and around Hyderabad City. When IT influx came, naturally all foreign and Indian multinationals preferred to be located in and around Hyderabad City. In all these developments, Hyderabad has been given the first preference over other cities in the State and income from various sources made the City an unrivalled one in India, perhaps next only to Bengaluru.

After all this, why cannot a citizen of Andhra Pradesh or say India come to Hyderabad for livelihood? Now how can you say that Hyderabad is the same Nawabi City of 1948? It is providing livelihood for people from all over Andhra Pradesh and India.

Political parties, administrators, industrialists, armchair commentators and publicists, and all sorts of media should pay attention to the change of the complexion of Hyderabad City. It is their bounden duty to see that this international city not to be made an exclusive resort of a small group of agitators. How can the City be tagged to a small area as the Capital when the efforts of the whole had gone into its development? This would only be an injustice to the contribution made by the whole of Andhra Pradesh.

(The writer is former Editor-in-Charge, Andhra Patrika)