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

Telangana VIII: My Letter to Sri Krishna Committee (SKC) - A Case for demerger of Telangana

Here is my letter to Sri Krishna committee advocating demerger of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh. This letter is an edited version of my previous post - TELANGANA III: A case of Tyranny of Majority.

To,
Member Secretary,
Room No: 248,
Vignan Bhavan Annexe,
Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi.

A

Case for demerger of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh

Telangana: A case of tyranny of majority

(9 April 2010)

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

Telanganites believe that with just over 1/3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assembly seats, they could not muster enough power to influence the decision making for 5 decades in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Testimony to this is that all agreements, accords, GOs, Supreme Court Judgments which were supposed to ensure just distribution of jobs and resources between Andhra and Telangana are either liquidated or violated to exploit Telangana and Telanganites could do nothing to stop that except democratically protest and continue to trust the state to correct the injustices. However, the state of Andhra Pradesh consistently failed to protect Telangana’s interests and instead exploited and discriminated against it. Why did this supposedly united state of Andhra Pradesh fail? The failure of the state of Andhra Pradesh has its origin in the kind of democracy it is practicing – one in which the majority Seema-Andhras who almost comprises 2/3 of the legislature have the final say in every matter. The failure of Andhra Pradesh is in the tyranny of the majority inherent in its democratic practices. Telangana struggle is a result of unabashed Majoritarianism of Seema-Andhra rulers and it is to break these shackles, a demerger is being advocated to separate out Telangana as was recommended by State Reorganization Committee (SRC) in 1956.

Telangana and Andhra: Unequal partners with different background

The core concern of Telanganites in 1950s during the time of reorganization of Indian states was that they would be unequally placed in competition with Andhrites as their political, cultural, educational background is different from those of Andhrites and were at a disadvantage in an uneven field.

Ø Telanganites were not allowed to participate in political activity in Nizam’s rule unlike how Andhrites experienced democratic processes and institutions in British’s Madras presidency. In fact, even while Telanganites were fighting their feudal lords in 1946, 2 years before they were ‘liberated’ by Indian union, an Andhrite (Tanguturi Prakasam) became the chief minister of Madras Presidency. To expect two communities from this diverse background to compete and co-exist in harmony was huge injustice to the junior partner – Telangana.

Ø Telanganites were hardly exposed to higher education in Nizam’s rule while Andhrites were well-served in British rule. The few Telanganites, who did manage, were into Urdu medium – Nizam’s official language (And this language obviously would be sidelined in a Telugu-centric linguistic state). On the other hand, the Nizam regime was almost tyrannical in tax-collection and it is from these sources that Nizam made huge investments in infrastructure in Hyderabad like railways, airport, universities like Osmania, hospitals like NIMS.

When Telanganites joined the free India in 1948, they obviously wanted to be masters of their destiny by getting themselves onto their feet educationally and politically and make use of the resources and infrastructure built by the Nizam through Telanganites’ sweat and blood. Thus, 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. Telanganites were vocal about this before the Fazal Ali commission and as a result the SRC clearly stated Telangana should exist as a separate state till at least 1961 by which Telangana would rebuild itself enough politically, economically and educationally and make an informed decision whether to continue separately or merge with Andhra.

Fazal Ali - for a level-playing field by 1961

In Para 386 and 387 of SRC report, Fazal Ali clearly mentioned how till 1961, a decision on merger could wait to achieve ‘uniformity’ or a level-playing field.

386. After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification.

387. The advantage of this arrangement will be that while the objective of the unification of the Andhras will neither be blurred nor impeded during a period of five or six years, the two governments may have stabilized their administrative machinery and, if possible, also reviewed their land revenue systems etc., the object in view being the attainment of uniformity. The intervening period may incidentally provide an opportunity for allaying apprehensions and achieving the consensus of opinion necessary for a real union between the two States.

However, Andhra legislature opposed the SRC's report and lobbied for an immediate merger even as it assured that it would put enough safeguards in place to alley Telangana’s fears of losing jobs, land, water and financial resources. The strong Andhra political lobby in Congress won the day as there was hardly a congress party unit in Telangana (as a legacy of Nizam banning congress activities in his rule) and forced an immediate merger. Thus the state of Andhra Pradesh of 1956 is thrust down the throat of Telanganites much against their will.

Fazal Ali’s prophecy – Tyranny of the majority:

Fazal Ali commission's SRC, which has recommended Telangana remain a separate state, in page 101 and Para 378 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."

As mentioned by Fazal Ali in his report, the fear of an unequal relation wherein the major partner usurps the rights of the minor was the core concern of Telangana and to alley these fears, various safeguards were announced. With literally no political lobby, thanks to their ‘no politics’ Nizam heritage Telanganites were forced to accept a conditional merger with safeguards. This was despite Fazal Ali commission’s explicit warning that these safeguards would be ineffective (SRC Para 384)! These safeguards which were to work as checks and balances for the majority Seema-Andhra partners were however not monitored by the central government and Telangana paid a heavy price for that.

Conditional Merger – with safeguards as checks and balances:

In 1956, Andhra ruling elite promised safeguards for Telanganites to use their resources for their betterment and that they would not be diverted to Andhra. 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 all 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 judgments 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.

Conditions broken – The Merger fails

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.

Telangana's woes didn't end there. Even as Supreme Court upheld its rights as envisaged in the 'Gentlemen 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 this 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 another safeguard. As was practice, he issued yet 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.

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." 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.

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 'Gentlemen agreement'. 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! After all, the union government hardly showed any interest in seeing to it that these agreements got implemented. 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.

Telangana suffers the tyranny of the majority – some facets

Ø In context of this political & economical majoritarianism, Telanganites served as CMs in 4 terms for a total of just 6 years in 54 years of Andhra Pradesh’s existence. On the other hand, a smaller Rayalaseema, in area and population, produced CMs for almost 25 years and even a President! It is clear Andhra Pradesh is leveraging its power as a ‘bigger’ state at Telangana’s expense.

Ø Even the most ardent united Andhra proponents agree that Telanganites over years lost thousands of jobs and promotions due to the violation of agreements in letter and spirit. The 610 GO is the latest of the many flip-flops.

Ø Just as in politics, the bureaucracy is riddled with Andhrites openly flouting all agreements to reserve Telangana jobs to locals. Out of 433 decision-making departmental heads in the Secretariat, hardly 7-8 from Telangana found a place! When decision making positions have no representation from a region, that region is bound to suffer due to either ignorant or indifferent policy-making that does not take into consideration the real needs, distinct characteristics of that region and the same happened in Telangana in all sectors – agriculture, industry, education, health.

Ø Telangana hardly gets 10% of the river waters of Krishna and Godavari while 55 – 65 % of these river catchment areas are in Telangana. The lame excuse is that in this India, the aspiring superpower which is on a moon mission, we find it hard to irrigate lands on a higher elevation! Apparently the lift irrigation required is very very costly and Andhra Pradesh can’t afford it the way it can afford losing thousands of Telangana farmers in suicide (Between 1998 and 2002 alone, AP Govt statistics reported more than 1000 suicides). More than 65% of Telangana’s workforce is in agriculture and in absence of Irrigation, they are forced to depend on bore wells which requires high investments which leads to high debts and more suicides. Even while the likes of AMR lift irrigation schemes in Nalgonda proved time and again that these lift irrigation schemes are feasible and are not as costly as publicized, the majoritarian policy-making continues to be ignorant and indifferent to Telangana’s agricultural needs and practices.

Ø Proponents of united Andhra Pradesh are showing Karimnagar as a success story in irrigation and Agriculture. Karimnagar is a typical Telangana district where more than 60% of irrigation is done through bore wells! Compare that with the districts in Andhra. The cost of production is unfeasibly high in Telangana which in turn raises the minimum support price (MSP) for farmers across the state. So who is benefiting at whose expense? The Andhrite farmers on one hand pay nominal charges for the canal irrigation sponsored by Government while Telangana farmers take loans from money-lenders for their bore wells and electricity bills. Telangana farmers when not committing suicide and surviving are doing so despite, not because of, the Andhra Pradesh government and its criminal negligence.

Ø Irrigation projects which were supposed to irrigate Telangana lands are going on for decades for lack of funds while projects much larger in Andhra would be in a fast-forward mode even without environmental clearances/ permissions from CWC. This reflects the priorities of Majoritarian set-up.

Ø Telangana districts with exception of Hyderabad and its surrounding ones like Medak, Rangareddy form the bottom half of the per-capita income charts of Andhra Pradesh. That speaks volumes as the per capita income before merger was higher in Telangana.

Ø While Telangana contributes the rich infrastructure in Hyderabad and the basic resources like land, water, power for its everyday operation and expansion into surrounding districts, it is pertinent to ask what it received in turn. Amidst the massive Industrialization in the city and surrounding districts, the fact that not a single industry captain is from Telangana is not lost on us.

Your committee comprises of experts in food, agriculture, rural economies, socio-economic studies, law and political studies. And Telanganites hope you will do the due diligence required to understand Telangana’s position today.

Demerger of Telangana – the only solution:

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 it is with this hope that want to take this non-violent, democratic movement to its logical end – the demerger. The demerger of Andhra and Telangana would not just unshackle Telangana but would unleash more democratic forces within two smaller states which would in turn result in continued brotherhood among Telugus in two states, this time in an equal relationship. The demand for separate state has to be honored for the cause of justice and for the people of Telangana to continue their faith in democratic mechanisms.

Jai Telangana.