A tale of two divisions

Now in 2013 substitute the term Andhra Pradesh for Bengal and Hyderabad for Calcutta read and understand the current state of affairs and examine the sheer relevance, veracity or otherwise of the attempt to bifurcate the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Risley, the then Home Secretary to the Government of India and an ethnographer who had codified the caste system in the 1901 census, reportedly wrote in an official note on December 6, 1904, “Bengal united is a power. Bengal divided will pull in several different ways. That is what the Congress leaders feel; their apprehensions are perfectly correct and they form one of the great merits of the scheme. One of our main objects is to split up and thereby to weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule.”

In a February 1905 letter to St. John Brodnick, the secretary of state for India, the then Viceroy explained: “Calcutta is the centre from which the Congress Party is manipulated throughout the whole of Bengal, and indeed the whole of India. Its best wire pullers and its most frothy orators all reside here. The perfection of their machinery and the tyranny which enables them to exercise are truly remarkable. They dominate public opinion in Calcutta; they affect the High Court; they frighten the local Government, and they are sometimes not without serious influence on the Government of India. The whole of their activity is directed to creating an agency so powerful that they may one day be able to force a weak government to give them what they desire.

Any measure in consequence that would divide the Bengali-speaking population; that would permit independent centres of activity and influence to grow up; that would dethrone Calcutta from its place as the centre of successful intrigue, or that would weaken the influence of the lawyer class, who have the entire organization in their hands, is intensely and hotly resented by them. The outcry will be loud and very fierce, but as a native gentleman said to me — “my countrymen always howl until a thing is settled; then they accept it.” Now in 2013 substitute the term Andhra Pradesh for Bengal and Hyderabad for Calcutta read and understand the current state of affairs and examine the sheer relevance, veracity or otherwise of the attempt to bifurcate the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy made a detailed presentation to the GoM on 18-11-2013 and raised the naxal, terrorism and communal issues as well as those pertaining to irrigation, education and employment opportunities to buttress his case against the division. However, while appreciating the presentation, Sushil Kumar Shinde made it clear that there is no way that the decision of the Union Cabinet and CWC can be reversed. Any rational citizen fails to understand how any decision of a political party can be implemented with unquestioned obedience if it is detrimental to the interests of the State and citizenry.

N Kiran Kumar Reddy on Monday reportedly took the Group of Ministers (GoM) by surprise offering to quit in return for keeping the State united. In 1920, the Indian National Congress (INC) began a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience, led by Mohandas Gandhi toward achieving independence from colonial rule. The committee, comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya - popularly known as JVP Report - in its report dated April 1, 1949, conceded, "If public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming, we, as democrats, have to submit to it, but subject to certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole."

If so, what has been the situation in the13 districts of AP since the announcement of bifurcation decision and what is the unequivocal demand of the people at large? Albert Einstein said that Gandhi’s great contribution to our time was his determination to moralise politics. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s impassioned observations made 41 years ago in Parliament in 1972 during the height of Jai Andhra agitation are still relevant and make sense than ever before. Note her statement in Parliament, “…all these matters have to be thought of not in terms of emotions but in terms of calm and collective thought. And not in terms of today, or tomorrow or the day after but of what it will mean to them and the country ten years hence, 20 years hence, a hundred years hence.” Do we need further rationalisation?

The rationalists see the act of partition as a challenge to Indian Federalism and not merely an administrative measure .They see it as a deliberate attempt to divide the Telugu-speaking State of AP territorially. It would also be a big blow to the growth of Telugu language and culture. Moreover, the official step had been taken in utter disregard of public opinion. The determinate superior authorities interested in short-lived political gain do not perceive the vehemence of protest of a majority population against the partition and that it is a blow to the sentiments of a very sensitive and courageous people. It would also be a big blow to the growth of Telugu language regarded as the best among regional languages centuries ago.

Divide if you must but divide to united people with decency and not with visible contempt to officials and public opinion, and not for conflict of interests; to promote better governance; to promote respect for sane advice; to promote all-round development; to accelerate socio-economic growth; to optimise the size of the State in every aspect in the Indian context.