The Land Of Telugus – FAQs

The demand for a separate state of Telangana is naturally raising a number of questions.  Some are raised out of ignorance, some out of bias and some out of genuine concern for maintaining status quo. In any case these questions need to be answered.  An attempt is made here:

[Note: Internet has been a major source for me for almost all the questions (and couple of them were raised while in discussion with friends) and a major chunk of statistics is also from Internet. Rest assured, wherever the statistics are mentioned they are checked at least twice with the reliable sources.]

Why the issue of separate Telangana is being raised once again?

The demand of the people of Telangana for a separate state is not a new development.  It was voiced much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to be raised even thereafter. It is essential to understand the history of the region to comprehend the historical need to become separate state (Will update the history soon in my next blogs). The reason for the resistance of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra in 1950s was the fear of exploitation in the enlarged state as rightly documented in States Reorganization Commission (SRC) as “One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the Coastal areas…The real fear 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 Andhras”. (SRC Report: para 378). And the reason for their reluctance to continue in the present state is the actual experience of being exploited.

Is it not a bogey raised, on and off, by the disgruntled politicians?

Sadly, the answer is mostly yes. Yet the demand for a separate state could not have sustained itself for more than six decades if it was just a ‘time pass demand’ raised on and off by disgruntled politicians. The demand for Telangana state never died ever since the region was forcibly merged against the wishes and opinions of Telangana people. It is true that there are too many opportunistic elements that are infiltrated in to the movement of the people knowing very well that this struggle will act as a political ladder in the hierarchy of power. But such aberrations cannot undermine the genuine aspirations of the people. Aspirations of those people who have two major rivers of South India traversing their homeland and yet can’t really utilize more than 20% of the waters. Can it be brushed aside for ever? What about the voice being constantly raised by the intelligentsia and practitioners of learned professions who do not have any vested interest in practical politics? Is it of no consequence? Can it be ignored just like that?

Is there no alternative to the demand for a separate state?

All possible alternatives have already been tried and experimented with – The Gentlemen’s Agreement, The All Party Accord, The Eight Point Formula, The Five Point Formula, The Six Point Formula and what not? Were they not experiments to safeguard the interests of Telangana within the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh? Have any of these agreements been implemented? Have any of these solemn pledges been redeemed? Have any of the judicial pronouncements including the verdict of Supreme Court of India been honored?  Now what else is left to be further experimented with?

What did the Chief Ministers who belonged to this region do while they were in power?

P. V. Narasimha Rao, M. Chenna Reddy and T. Anjaiah did become Chief Ministers of the state. But what was the duration of stewardship of all of them put together? It was hardly 5 years, in the state’s history of 53 years, that too in bits and pieces – to be precise, in four spells and each spell spanning a few months.  It should be noted that J. Vengal Rao was a migrant from Coastal area. He never came out of his moorings and he never identified himself with the hopes and aspirations of people of Telangana.

P. V. Narasimha Rao made a feeble attempt in 1972 to implement the verdict of Supreme Court validating the Mulki Rules (Mulki Rules is the implementation of a 1919 firman by the Nizam, which said only “Mulkis” were eligible for public appointments in Telangana. A Mulki was one who was born in the region or had resided there continuously for 15 years and had given an affidavit abandoning the idea of returning to his/her native place). The verdict, naturally, was in favor of Telangana.  But the reaction from the other regions was so instantaneous and so wild that in the process P. V. Narasimha Rao lost his chair of Chief Minister and the Telangana region lost the only chance of safeguarding the interests of the region.  Even the verdict of the highest judicial authority of the country was nullified.  This can very well happen to any leader from Telangana in that position and for any number of times.  Because, their survival depends upon the support of the area which has a numerical majority in the political setup and has greater money power to influence the political process and administrative machinery. That being the sad version of democracy will become another story.  The problem, therefore, lies essentially in the nature of political equations between the developed and backward regions and not fully and necessarily in the persons holding positions of power.  The States Reorganization Commission eloquently and very rightly foresaw the situation and commented upon this as well after a dispassionate assessment of the feelings and fears of people of Telangana (“One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the Coastal areas…The real fear 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 Andhras”. (SRC Report: para 378)

Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra also are backward. What is so special about Telangana to ask for a separate state on this score?

It is true that these two regions also are backward. They too have been, like Telangana, victims of neglect. But Telangana has an additional problem i.e. diversion of its resources, which legitimately belong to it, and worst, for the development of other regions.  Best – or worst – examples are diversion of river waters and other natural resources, financial resources, employment opportunities and so on. This has been going on unabated.  The other two regions do not have such problem.

Further, Telangana can be a viable unit as a separate state and can be better developed.  This was also endorsed by the SRC. Above all, the people of the region want to have it. You go and ask anybody in the region, the answer would be the same except probably a few people in Hyderabad who never went beyond the comfortable boundaries of multiplexes, big smooth roads and cyber cities in to the hinterlands of Telangana that are afflicted with hunger, suicides, malnutrition and seasonal diseases.

What about linguistic unity and cultural identity?

Next to Hindi, largest number of people in India speaks Telugu.  If there can be nine Hindi-speaking states with the possibility of some more coming up, what is wrong in having more than one state for Telugus?  It may be recalled that the SRC recommended the creation of separate Telangana state in addition to the already existing Andhra state.  The SRC, in fact, never wanted language to be the sole criterion for reorganizing Indian states. The most intriguing part of the whole argument of the so-called linguistic unity is that the Telangana dialect is ridiculed with impunity especially by the cine field and mass media.  Who controls them is an open secret.  Can such things go on without the connivance of ruling classes? Otherwise what are the agencies that are supposed to be censoring films and TV serials are doing?  In such humiliating conditions what is the significance of linguistic and cultural unity?  Has it not become totally meaningless?

How many smaller states can this country have?

More than half of the states in the country are smaller than Telangana.  They are: Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal of which six are ranked ahead of Andhra Pradesh (in a ‘best Indian states to live in’ survey conducted by an Indian magazine ‘India Today’). Further, West Bengal and Kerala also are smaller than Telangana in geographical area.  Then where are this doubts and objections to conferring statehood on Telangana, which would be the largest of the smaller states in the country, are coming from? Don’t you think it’s a mere illogical excuse to continue the exploitation of the region?

Isn’t separate Telangana state an anti-Andhra people’s movement?
A very big no. Telangana people don’t bear any animosity against the coastal Andhra or Rayalaseema people or the ordinary migrants from those areas to Hyderabad or to any place in Telangana.

Hyderabad has been developed efficiently by everyone. Is it now fair to ask some of them leave?

It is not fair to ask anybody leave their home. A person settled in Hyderabad or anywhere in Telangana (irrespective of the place where he is from) has as much right to live there as much as much as the person who was born in the region.

But it is a travesty of truth when an impression gets so easily created that the development of twin cities took place after they became capital of AP. The fact is that the plight of erstwhile Andhra state in locating its capital could be mitigated only because of the formation of Andhra Pradesh and giving to it, on a silver platter, an already well developed capital of erstwhile Hyderabad state. The States Reorganization Commission also was very clear on this issue when they reported “This will also solve the difficult and vexing problem of finding a permanent capital for Andhra, for the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are very well suited to be the capital of Vishalandhra” (SRC Report: para 371).

The development that has taken place in and around the capital city, after the formation of Andhra Pradesh, is natural and is comparable to the development that has taken place in other major cities of the country. Besides, while we keep discoursing about the ‘development’ that Hyderabad has so fortunate to experience in this 50 years thanks to the people of ‘all regions’, why not think about the possibility of this happening in a same way or, in all probability, better way had Hyd been left on its own to get developed!?

Huge reservoirs, like the Nizam Sagar, Tungabhadra, Osman Sagar, Himayat Sagar, and others were built, not in the past 50 years! Products such as silverware, saris, Nirmal and Kalamkari paintings and artifacts, unique Bidri handcrafted items, lacquer bangles studded with stones, silk ware, cotton ware and handloom-based clothing materials are made and traded through the city for centuries but not just for the past 50 years!

Few significant changes to the city in the past 50 years include the way Hyderabad has established itself as the leading destination for IT and IT-enabled services, pharmaceuticals, call centers and entertainment industries. Many computer software companies, software consulting firms, business process outsourcing (BPO) firms, dealing with IT and other technological services firms have established their offices and facilities in the city since the 1990s. But it should be noted that any IT or non-IT services industry had started its operations in Hyd only coz of the potential workforce the city was offering at a modest expense. This could have anyway happened eventually and there’s nothing anyone from Andhra or even Telangana should take credit for!

And please understand that construction of flyovers, widening of roads, development of Hi-Tech cities etc., will not address the serious problems confronting the people in the other nine districts of Telangana. Cholera deaths in Adilabad, spread of malaria in the tribal belt, suicides by farmers in Warangal, Karimnagar and Khammam, suicides by weavers in Karimnagar, eternal famine conditions in Mahabubnagar, flurosis in Nalgonda, fall of ayacut under Nizamsagar cannot be ignored under the gilded veils of ‘development’ that we presume to have achieved in Hyderabad.

Advertisement