Telangana XII: About Amarajeevis and Anti-Nationals

The serving ministers in the AP Govt. from Andhra and Rayalaseema opposing the demerger of Telangana have made their representation to the Sri Krishna Committee. 6 Months after the committee is set up, they expressed surprise about it being constituted to look into what they say is an anti-national demand. They said the demand for demerger is anti-national and should treat it as a cognizable offence and deal with it accordingly. They further opined asking for a new state is equivalent to waging war against the country! And that it has the potential to disintegrate the country itself.

It is understandable that people in general or these politicians have reservations against the demerger but what baffles is this ostrich-like posture of these ministers. Instead of putting their real or perceived losses across the table and discuss their concerns about the sharing of river waters, infrastructure, capital for a new state they make preposterous talk about how a demerger and a few possible new states could disintegrate the country. They continue with the same strategy of stalling the demerger by refusing to start any meaningful debate on it. Even in the clarity of the results of by-polls, the ministers could not refrain from calling their own 40 million subjects in Telangana anti-national. How would they return back to their ministerial seats and work for betterment of the same ‘anti-national’ subjects? The ministers were insensitive and irresponsible.

Notwithstanding the motives of this argument, here is a brief examination of it. There were around 568 princely states in India when India became independent. And there was this wound of partition on religious lines. In the south, there was an anti-Hindi agitation for 3 years from 1937 in Madras presidency. These were but few of those many challenges the first Indian government had to face in free India. The Indian government needed time to settle down and was wary of religious, regional, linguistic, casteist agendas. Obviously, in such a diverse nation, a secular Nehru must be grappling to forge a pan-Indian identity socially and politically and set a strong foundation for a fledgling democracy. His idea was that an immediate reorganization of the states before the nation could build its democratic mores and institutions is fraught with danger. In fact, the Dhar commission, which looked into the demands to form new states, decided against the idea in 1949 as “it was not in the larger interest of the Indian nation and should not be taken in hand”. In fact the Dhar commission clearly mentioned that there is no homogeneity among Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra districts in the proposed Andhra state - all of the former were facing revenue deficits while the latter were in surplus. In addition, the Andhra leadership was demanding inclusion of Madras in Andhra province much to the chagrin of Tamils.

Nehru wanted these things to be sorted out before going ahead with the formation of Andhra state. And on May 22, 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru told Parliament of how "for some years now our foremost efforts have been directed to the consolidation of India. Personally, I would look upon anything that did not help this process of consolidation as undesirable. Even though the formation of linguistic provinces may be desirable in some cases, this would obviously be the wrong time. When the right time comes, let us have them by all means".

But then the Andhrites amongst all were unwilling to wait. Nehru wrote to chief ministers on December 2, 1952 that “the decision to establish the Andhra state will open out questions relating to other demands about linguistic provinces”. His fear about consequences of unveiling the Andhra state clearly showed up even as he in principal accepted to create an Andhra province. The next day, even as Potti Sriramulu was fasting for 40 odd days, Nehru wrote to Rajagopalachari: "Some kind of fast is going on for the Andhra Province and I get frantic telegrams. I am totally unmoved by this and I propose to ignore it completely".

On December 15, 1952, Sriramulu died, after 58 days of fasting. The news then made international headlines as doubts were cast on how a newly-free India can weather the storm unleashed by regional forces. According to an article in TIME magazine, “A wave of hysterical emotion swept Andhra territory. Students, youths and workers, led by Communists, attacked Indian government property, cut telegraph wires, damaged railroads, burned rail cars and stoned fire engines, looted railroad restaurants, hoisted black flags of mourning over government buildings. Police, firing on rioters, killed seven and wounded forty. In the afternoon the body, seated in a chair on a four-wheel cart, was drawn through the streets by Telugu schoolboys waving lengths of black silk, beating their chests and crying, "Madras city is ours." This situation lasted for 4 days before Nehru was forced to accept the demand for Andhra state.

In fact on December 16 , Nehru wrote to C. Rajagopalachari, chief minister of Madras state, saying of the Andhras: “Their state will be a backward one in many ways and financially hard up. They cannot expect much help from the Centre. However, that is their lookout. If they want the state, they can have it on conditions that we have stated (i.e. without Madras city).”

Nehru made his displeasure known later too when he refused the subsequent request of Andhra leadership to make the parliament stand up to pay homage to Potti Sriramulu. That of course did not stop the Andhra leadership from garlanding him as Amarajeevi. Indian government’s intention then was to go ahead cautiously, after framing an objective policy on restructuring the states. In fact, Nehru agreed in principle in 1949 itself for formation of Andhra so why was the Andhrite leadership unwilling to wait, that when Independent India is on threshold of a new era and when it needs all its energy to foster brotherhood and harmony among Indians?

And just as Nehru predicted, while the Andhra state was running into a financial mess, the Andhra leadership was back to the center lobbying for control over Hyderabad’s resources in the name of Vishalandra. On July 13, 1953, an angry Nehru told chief ministers: “So far as we are concerned, we have declared quite clearly that after the Andhra state is well established, we shall appoint a high-powered commission to consider the question of reorganization of states… I am surprised that suddenly some people should have galvanized themselves into activity in regard to Hyderabad state and demanded its disintegration… I am sorry for this because it denotes an outlook with which I have no sympathy and, which, I am sure, if given free play, would bring chaos and lead to other disastrous consequences also.”

On October 17, 1953, he even ridiculed the demand for Visalandhra as an idea bearing a "tint of expansionist imperialism". And what do we call these imperialists? Amarajeevis or Anti-nationals? At every instance, they bull-dozed their way, whether separate Andhra, or merger of Telangana (despite Fazal Ali's report), unmindful of the consequences for central government or for the welfare of the involved people and in pursuit of increasing their own power and pelf.

And in the present day scenario of Telangana demerger, all parties have pledged in their manifestoes support for the same including the one to which these gentlemen belong. In fact it is the same congress that declared the state last December 9. Even on December 7, an all-party meeting was called to ascertain their views and only after all have nodded for the demerger did the GoI announcement come 2 days later with complete consensus on the issue. And then all the Andhra and Seema leadership takes a U-turn and now calls Telanganites anti-national! The point is that if there is anyone anti-national, it could be Amarajeevis and Andhrakesaris not Telanganites who are still patiently waiting for justice through consensus and democratic means. And it is indeed funny that in the age when all debates on improving efficiency and eliminating corruption in governance ends up with the mantra of decentralization of power and resources, these wise ministers should see the demerger as a threat to the national integrity rather than a process of decentralization. It is not as if the ministers do not know either history or economics. They try selling fear and insecurity to Andhrites about the consequences of demerger with these remarks to bolster their own voter strength back home in their constituencies and continue amassing wealth in this large state leveraging their power.

Image Courtesy THE HINDU

My posts on Telangana:

TELANGANA XI: Cut the crap, the verdict is out!

TELANGANA X: The Good, Bad & Ugly of National Media Coverage
TELANGANA IX: EPW goes on the Telangana trail
TELANGANA VIII: My letter to Sri Krishna Committee (SKC) - A case for demerger of Telangana
TELANGANA VII: Grossly discriminated against: Prof Bhalchandra Mungekar
TELANGANA VI: Why Telugu news channels bar coverage?
TELANGANA V: Plutocrats unleash terror over OU students
TELANGANA IV: Shri Krishna committee a crude joke
TELANGANA III: A case of Tyranny of Majority
TELANGANA II: Statehood at Midnight
TELANGANA I: Telangana Movement and the Plutocracy: The Gathering Storm