|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 20 June 2013
From Vishalandhra
to Telangana
LONG ROAD, END
UNCERTAIN
Dr S Saraswathi
(Former, Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
“Chalo Assembly” march launched by the Telangana
Joint Action Committee on 14th June is the latest battle cry in the
Telangana Movement, going on for over half a century. Three days later, the
Centre made a counter move by inducting two more ministers in the Union Cabinet
in the hope of strengthening the “united Andhra” lobby. Uncertainty continues
to nag all political parties in Andhra Pradesh. Other than witnessing
agitations, the State has seen MLAs defecting and getting disqualified in
keeping with their passion for or against a separate State. How long will this
go on?
While the Centre may take a call within coming weeks or
months, the forthcoming Assembly elections due in the State, may help clinch
matters. The present crisis is most likely to become a crucial poll issue. Every party has to take a clear stand and inform
the people about it. The leaders will also be expected to fulfil whatever they
promise in this regard. For, the problem is lingering too long for even a slow
moving country to test the patience of even those people unaffected by any
decision on Telangana.
Moreover, the Telangana Movement has seen many promises –
nay, broken promises - and all forms of direct people’s action - peaceful and
violent. Perhaps, it is one dominant issue on which everyone in Andhra Pradesh
may have an opinion of his own whether he is aware of the politics and economics of dividing a State
or not.
The history of linguistic States in India gives a
special space for Andhra Pradesh which may be considered the original root of
this banyan tree. The very notion of linguistic States grew from Tamil-Telugu
competition in the old multilingual Madras Presidency of pre-independence era.
The Freedom Movement with which Swadeshi sentiments were
interlinked stimulated a passion for Indian languages. It was also a way of
expressing resentment to import of foreign goods.
It was in 1920, the Indian National Congress, at the Nagpur session adopted the
principle of redistribution of provinces on linguistic basis. It was endorsed
by the Nehru Committee in 1928. Thereafter, the Congress stuck to this
principle and reiterated it many times in its annual party sessions. This is an
unalterable historical fact.
This linguistic principle was applied by the Congress in its
own organization by establishing a separate Pradesh Congress Committee for Telugu-speaking
districts of the Madras Presidency.
Political climate following Partition in 1947 suddenly
altered the nation’s priority. Unity and integrity of the nation was in
jeopardy as free India faced
unprecedented communal riots and complicated issues in the accession of
Princely States within India.
However, under pressure from the linguistic lobby, the
Linguistic Provinces Commission known as Dar Commission was appointed in June
1948 to examine the question of linguistic provinces. This Commission ruled out
any redistribution of provinces in the then prevailing political conditions in
the country. Specifically, the Commission considered it unwise to demarcate
provincial boundaries on linguistic basis overriding historical, geographic,
economic, and cultural factors.
This stand found support from the JVP Committee composed of
Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya constituted by
the Indian National Congress in 1948.
The Committee boldly reversed the long-standing promise of the Congress
for forming linguistic States and looked at the question from the angle of a democratic
government faced with the rise of regionalism.
The JVP Committee held that the primary concern should be national
security, unity, and economic prosperity.
It pointed out that language was not only a binding factor, but also a
divisive force. It did not agree to wholesale application of the linguistic factor
for provincial reorganization, but recommended that each case should be
individually considered without subverting the existing organization or
inciting conflicts.
This shows that there were always differences within the
Congress from the beginning. It also
reflects how the party could change its stance according to its own position.
Pre-independence Congress had no hesitation to promise linguistic
reorganization of provinces; but post-independence Congress was baffled with
practical difficulties of making radical structural changes in the governance
of the country. It then put the responsibility for a decision on the wishes of
the people concerned. Unfortunately,
this attitude, which sounds democratic, has brought in party politics and
opportunist stances.
The Andhra
State was formed on the
agreement among the Andhra Provincial Congress and Tamil Nadu Congress and the
Madras Government in 1953. It comprised the Telugu speaking areas of the old Madras
Presidency.
In December 1955, the States Reorganization Commission (SRC)
was appointed by the Government of India to examine the broader question of reorganization
of the States. Following the linguistic principle, it
recommended the merger of nine districts of Hyderabad State
(the former Princely State of Nizam which merged with the Indian union in 1948)
and created Andhra Pradesh. The move broke the old Hyderabad
State and joined the different
linguistic areas with Bombay, Mysore (as they were then called) and Andhra.
The concept of Vishalandhra gained currency during this
period along with the demand for a separate Telangana
State out of the old Hyderabad State.
The SRC, in fact, was in favour of creating a separate Telangana State as separatists feared exploitation
of the backward Telangana region by the comparatively forward Andhras. In response to this, a “Gentleman’s
Agreement” was reached between Andhra and Telangana leaders under the auspices
of the SRC to protect the interests of Telangana residents. Most important
among the safeguards was job reservation for Mulkis – that is, residents of Hyderabad State. A Regional Committee was created
to ensure protection of Telangana interests by the State government.
We have to recall all these developments which form the
background for the formation of Telangana Rashtra Samiti by K. Chandrasekhara
Rao in 2000. Its main plank was to constitute a separate Telangana as it
existed before the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Between 1956 and 2000, the State had gone
through several agitations.
In November 2009, the Home Minister announced in the Lok
Sabha that the Government would initiate the process for creation of separate
Telangana. But, instead another committee – Sri Krishna Committee – was
constituted.
By this time, the issue itself has developed several new
dimensions unknown in 1956. The
Committee worked out six possible options, but strongly favoured the retention
of a united Andhra Pradesh with constitutional provisions for empowerment of Telangana
area as the best option.
The story of Telangana is a lesson how not to resolve a
problem. It best illustrates the dangers in vacillation of policies,
indecision, and short-term political calculations in dealing with a long-term problem.
Certainly, there is today no solution acceptable to all parties concerned. From Vishalandhra to Telangana, the road is
long and arduous, and the end uncertain. Conditions have so altered from the
days of Vishalandhra that even if Telangana is formed, the woes of this region
will not end but may assume different forms.
Already, the region called Rayalaseema, distinct from
coastal Andhra, has been claiming separate State to further its own prospects. There
are differences within parties on breaking the State. The advantages of a big State
for development are lost sight of in the attraction of power, positions, and
offices that a new State can bring. But, the course of fragmentation will not
find an end. We have to plan for inclusive development of all regions and all
people. --- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
