TELANGANA III: A case of Tyranny of Majority

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited power of the majority.
-Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America

In our age the power of majorities tends to become arbitrary and absolute. And therefore, it may well be that to limit the power of majorities, to dispute their moral authority, to deflect their impact,to dissolve their force, is now the most important task of those who care for liberty.
-Walter Lippmann in American Inquisitors

One question that cropped up in my previous post, in the context of the present Telangana movement, is about the failure of Telangana leaders in protecting the interests of the region in last 50 odd years. Why were the region's leaders so helpless in averting the discrimination met to the region? Some critics of the movement straightaway jump to a conclusion that Telangana leaders were not as 'efficient' as Andhra leaders so they didn't develop their region enough! I didn't believe in Hitler's Aryan supremacy nor do I believe in Andhra supremacy to accept this chauvinistic remark. Instead, I believe the reason is systemic and lies in the tyranny of the majority that has been given unchecked power in our democracy. Telangana struggle is a result of unabashed Majoritarianism of Andhrite rulers.

Tyranny of Majority:

Ever since Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety in 399 BC, the core critique of democracy has been the concept of tyranny of majority. Socrates' death showed us what a majority can do and where democracy could go wrong, even inadvertently. Socrates questioned the concept of majority getting empowered blindly in a democracy. Borrowing his thinking, one would question why for instance, in a group of 10 members, a group of 6 would be given all the power to rule over the remaining 4. Does being majority also imply being just and right? Not necessarily, the group of 6 would protect their interests even at the cost of the interests of the remaining 4 as shown amply in world democracies. Armed with nearly 2/3 of the Assembly seats, the Andhra plutocracy with vast interests in all kinds of businesses inflicted the same tyranny on Telangana.

Checks and Balances - a cure to the tyranny of majority:

It is in this light that the founding fathers of some constitutions across the world took care to protect the interests of minorities in democracies. And so instead of just placing faith in the basic goodness of human beings (like in case of French constitution), fathers of constitution in countries like America came up with elaborate mechanisms in an effort to stop a winner-take-all scenario. They have introduced checks and balances to prevent the majority group or the majority ideology to get tyrannical powers over minority. America's founding father James Madison famously said way back in 1788 "If men were angels, no government would be necessary...but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." The emphasis hence is on designing a effective checks and balances. It simply does not work if we just go by faith and hope about the human goodness. Example: In the US, every state regardless of its population sends two senators to Washington - California with roughly 70 times the population of Wyoming has just as many votes in the Senate as Wyoming- which means that senators representing about a minuscule minority in the US can block any proposed law. This makes sure all law-making require bipartisan support. Hence, even if the ruling party has a good majority, it can't steamroll its decisions over the minority.

Telangana- a case of tyranny of majority:

Page 101, Para 378 of Fazal Ali commission's SRC which has recommended Telangana remain a separate state clearly stated -

"The real fears of the people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately, while Telangana, itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra."

There were agitations in Telangana opposing the idea of merger right from 1952(Non-Mulki agitation) when many youth lost their life in police firing. However, Andhra legislature opposed the commission's report and lobbied for the merger even as it assured that it would put enough safeguards in place to alley Telangana fears of losing jobs, land, water and financial resources. In that context, Telangana's merger with Andhra state in 1956 was a conditional one with safeguards, in form of Gentlemen agreement, attached to protect itself from the majority Andhrites who are comparatively well-educated. Having initiated and lobbied for the conditional merger along, the Andhra leadership had the onus on them to keep their word. But all they started was a rich history of betrayals making a mockery of all agreements, presidential orders, court judgements in letter and spirit. The safeguards in the 'Gentlemens Agreement' mentioned that Telangana's jobs, land, water and financial resources will be reserved for itself. Earlier Fazal Ali commission explicitly warned these safeguards would be ineffective (SRC Para 384)! Fazal Ali's prophecy came true and none of the safeguards which were supposed to serve as checks and balances were implemented. Telangana indeed became a colony for the majority. The 1969 Telangana agitation forced the center to appoint the Justice V.Bhargava committee which eventually confirmed the worst fears of Telanganites - that budgetary surpluses from Telangana have been moved to Andhra right from 1956. It has been proved that Madison's mantra of checks and balances failed to serve justice to Telangana thereby making it a victim of the tyranny of the majority.

Telangana's woes didn't end there. Even as supreme court upheld its rights as envisaged in the 'Gentlemens agreement', the Andhra plutocrats with their power and pelf overrode the highest court order too in parliament with brute majority. Thus, the concept of justice took backseat to number game of majority politics in democracy. While the major checks and balances have been entirely removed, Telangana was offered a consolatory one - in the shape of Telangana Regional Development Board. This board was supposed to overlook all development activity in Telangana and give a touch of financial self-rule for Telangana within the state of A.P. But then, Andhrite leaders have already shown their irreverence to agreements, accords, GOs, Supreme Court Judgements. So it was a matter of time before these minor check be done away with and yes, they did. NTR came to power in 1983 and among the very first actions he did was to dismantle the Board saying "We(Andhra people) are today in a supreme position, there is no need for a parallel board, a check or countercheck!!". So there it went again, yet an another safeguard. As was practice, he issued yet an another consolation, a far lesser safeguard in 1984, that of 610 GO and of course habits die hard. Even that didn't get implemented, till now. That is the disaster hegemonic power unleashed upon Telangana.

Andhrite plutocrats never abided by any agreements and when pressed to do so, reacted by either whittling down or altogether doing away with the checks and balances as shown in NTR's own words. In hindsight, we now understand why Fazal Ali warned against the 'Gentlemens agreement'. He did see the example of Sri Bagh pact before. The 1937 accord which was to protect Rayalaseema's interests was conveniently forgotten. The overarching feature of the 54 year experience for Telangana is that a majority can never be benevolent if there are no constitutional safeguards. If there indeed were some agreed upon safeguards, as in this case, you still need to trust the basic goodness of human beings to follow them! The French model of human goodness wont work for us here in this age when elections and power is synonymous with stakes in billions of dollars of legitimate and illegitimate businesses. In our kind of democracy, winner takes it all despite any agreements and the majority wins. So Telangana was doomed to be a permanent minority the moment it took the 'Gentlemen' bait. The wealthy plutocrats among Andhrites hold the real levers of power and anyone whether a Telanganite or Andhrite would be able to hold any ministry only as long as he serves as a stooge for them.

In context of this political & economical majoritarianism, any question about what Telangana leaders have done for their region while in ministry is a naive one. Telanganites served as CMs in 4 terms for a total of 6 years in 54 years of this state's existence. On the other hand, Rayalaseema leaders served as CMs for almost 25 years and even a term as President and we all see where Seema now stands in development indices! The point is not about who is in ministry, its about whose interests they are serving. After garnering the majority power, plutocrats in this state grew from strength to strength, put up place-holders like the present irrigation minister who won by 17 votes as representative of Telangana! Ever wondered why a Telangana mass leader like PJR never found his way into ministries despite deafening victories in the heart of Hyderabad? The games majority can play in a democracy are amazing indeed. The invisible character of hegemonic power is poisonous. It woes the minority when required only to boot them out later. 5 decades is a long time and the patience ran out in Telangana. Enough of the experiments with checks and balances, It is to break out of this majority stranglehold, Telangana wants its own legislature and rule itself, make its laws, use its waters, have its jobs and keep its self-respect. And guess what, the Andhra plutocrats say they are okay with Telangana state if the bill for the same passes through their assembly!