Telangana has come, but along with it opened a Pandora's Box because it's doubtful if the justification that existed in the 20th century still exists. But these doubts stem more from the attitude of contemporary politicians who can't grasp the dynamics of social realities
Telangana has had a chequered career. Some years before the independence of India, armed Dalams of the Communist Party of India (CPI) rose against the tyrannical rule of the Nizam. In armed combat they fought the ruthless Razakars that formed the bulk of the Nizam's forces. Only some years after Independence, when the CPI gave up its formulation that “this independence is false” (Yeh Azadi Jhoothi Hai) did the fighting stop.
But as this episode in history shows, a large number of cadres from Telangana was looking forward to a separate state. later the Congress took up the struggle for a composite Andhra Pradesh based on the sacrifice of Potti Sriramalu who fasted unto death for a composite Andhra State. But the lingering dream of a separate Telangana did not vanish.
Under the leadership of veteran Congress chief minister Chenna Reddy mobilisation for a separate Telangana with privileges of statehood to be valid only for Mulkis, i.e. residents of Telangana again showed that there remained a constituency in support of a Telangana State. Ironically, Jawaharlal Nehru who rejected his own father Motilal Nehru’s Report on linguistic states himself campaigned in support of one in the hard fought state elections in Andhra Pradesh in the mid 50s. Nehru in fact targeted the CPI and stressed that the Congress was dedicated to socialism. This led the national press to cynically term Nehru’s speech as old wine in new bottles.
Out from the blue
So it is clear that the demand for a Telangana has not arisen from the blue. But what is new is that its creation as of some other earlier states disproves the theory of linguistic states as the best political formation in a composite India. The demand for Telangana has many strands. But a dominant strand is a feeling of being marginalised by Seemandhra.
No matter what analysts might state for or against Telangana, the fact is that there is a widespread perception that Telangana has been kept backward and been denied the fruits of its labour. Clearly a movement of this depth and area, cannot be seen as a support of a charismatic individual, TSR. He is the major leader but there are thousands of activists scattered all over Telangana who also have their eyes on Hyderabad. Which would be the economic hub of TelanganaIJ This will be a major source of contention between Telangana and Seemandhra.
Of course the Congress has promised the transfer of Hyderabad to Telangana within ten years. Such promises are not always kept. When Punjab was divided it was promised that water from the Sutlej, Yamuna canal would be provided to Haryana. A separate new capital would be made available to Haryana, along with the existing capital Chandigarh. This shows how tricky dealing with such emotive and backward political formations can be.
More demands
What analysts and the press have singularly failed to do is to assess the rise of Telangana in the light of the mantra on the viability of linguistic states. The demand by Chief Minister Mayawati, for the division of Uttar Pradesh into four states is a clear indication. In the Northeast greater Assam was broken up to create new states. The demand has increased and not diminished. There has been a long standing demand for an autonomous state of Nagalim comprising parts of Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Inside Manipur the Kukis (Zomis) are demanding their own separate state. The tribal areas of Bodoland and Karbi Anglong are all demanding separate states in the wake of the tumultuous politics in Telangana.
It is extremely likely that major tribal movements will come up based on ethnicity and a perception of lack of development. The CPM has been worried for years about the demand for Gorkhaland. That is why they have opposed new states that are not based on the principle of a common language. What is troubling is the gross ineptitude in tackling such problems by parties at the centre.
While setting up small state formations that were separated from a neighboring state, there has been no viable attempt in making these small states self sufficient and friendly with their neighbours. The Bangladeshi card has been played with great vigour for example, in many Northeast states. When Nehru was alive he tried his best to allow separation but to also hold states together by empowering them with funds for development. Now the new states when they come up and it is likely some more will, they are not marked by statecraft so as to build their self assurance and friendship with neighboring states or ethnic formations.
In other words, the cat is out of the bag. Future developments seem to be first dissatisfaction in a existing state, second demands for funds and concessions, third, failing which demands for outright statehood. Such situations can be extremely troublesome for people who have lost existing privileges. In Telangana for example, especially in the Hyderabad area, Andhras are very worried if they will get admission to the educational institutions which are now all going to go, once Hyderabad goes to Telangana .
The Telangana movement is not yet a sons of the soil movement. But if there are delays in the transfer of Hyderabad, the funding of Telangana and counter movements initiated by powerful political leaders, in the Seemandhra area, things could go badly wrong. The lesson of Telangana is keep your eyes open, establish immediate contact with the disaffected parties and work out what is the most acceptable solution that meets the maximum possible requirements. Unfortunately this rarely happens. It is about time that politicians, the media and intellectuals did their job.
It would be a dangerous illusion to think that the demands for new states are going to go away. The concept of a motherland as a |special home which gives identity and benefits to people is going to stay with us for quite some time. There was a moment during
Nehru’s time and later when such compromises could be worked out. It seems that that opportunity has gone.
(The writer is Professor, Centre for Comparative Politics & Political Theory. School of International Studies, JNU).