PERSPECTIVE: BEYOND TELANGANA – The Indian republic is young enough to try out more states – young enough, yes !! but ‘mature enough,’ is just a “maybe” ?!!
FROM THE TELEGRAPH
FORWARDED BY GORKHS DAJU
POLITICS AND PLAY: BY RAMACHANDRA GUHA
The United States of America has less than half as many citizens as the republic of India, yet almost twice as many states. The map of that country has been drawn and redrawn very many times in the course of its history. On January 1, 1800, for example, the US had only 16 states; fifty years later, the number had jumped to 30. When the 19th century ended there were 45 states in the union. Oklahoma was added in 1907, while Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated in 1912. Hawaii and Alaska came on board as late as 1959.
To be sure, while some of these states were carved out of existing ones, most were added on as the American colonists expanded their reach and influence to the west and south of the continent. On the other hand, the republic of India is constituted out of territory left behind by the British. After the integration of the princely states was completed in 1948, no new land has been acquired by the Indian Union. Still, the American example is not entirely irrelevant, for it shows that large nations take shape over long periods of time. It may only be after a century or more after a nation’s founding that its political geography settles into a stable equilibrium, with its internal divisions and subdivisions finally and firmly established.
When India became independent in 1947, it inherited the provincial divisions of the raj, these a product of accident rather than of historical or social logic. At once, a clamour began to create states based on linguistic communities. The Telugu speakers of the Madras Presidency wanted an Andhra Pradesh. The Marathi speakers of the Bombay Presidency demanded a Maharashtra. The Punjabi, Malayalam and Kannada speakers likewise mounted campaigns for states incorporating their particular interests.
The Congress leadership, represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, was initially opposed to linguistic states. Having just witnessed the division of India on the basis of religion, it now feared a further balkanization on the basis of language. However, the demands grew so insistent that the government finally constituted a states reorganization commission. The commission had three members: a jurist, S. Fazal Ali (who also served as chairman), a historian, K.M. Panikkar, and a social worker, H.N. Kunzru.
The report of the SRC, made public in 1955, recommended that the four major linguistic communities of southern India get states of their own. A consolidated state of Marathi speakers was not granted, principally because the Parsi and Gujarati capitalists of Mumbai were fearful of its consequences. However, this led to a resurgence of the samyukta (united) Maharashtra demand, which acquired such widespread popular support that in 1960 two separate states of Gujarat and Maharashtra were constituted, with Bombay being awarded to the latter.
The SRC did not concede the demand of Punjabi speakers either, because it was led by the Sikhs, and the Congress leadership feared that it might be the precursor of an independent Sikh homeland. But when the Sikhs fought so valiantly for India in the 1965 war with Pakistan, the longstanding demand for a ‘Punjabi suba’ was finally conceded, with the areas dominated by non-Sikhs being separated to constitute the new states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
Viewed retrospectively, the fears of Nehru and Patel appear to have been misplaced. With the partial exception of Punjab in a particular decade (the 1980s), the new states based on language have not been a threat to national unity. To the contrary, they have consolidated this unity. Whereas Pakistan split into two because the Punjabi and Urdu speakers of the west oppressed the Bengali speakers of the east, and Sri Lanka underwent a 30-year civil war because the Sinhala majority sought to make the minority Tamils second-class citizens, the republic of India has, by creating clearly demarcated territories and autonomous provincial governments, allowed its major linguistic communities the space and place to nourish and renew themselves.
In the context of the challenges of the 1950s and 1960s, the creation of linguistic states was an effective solution. But must it be a permanent one? Do not now the new challenges of inclusive development and good governance call for a further redrawing of the map of the republic? That is the question raised by the movement for a Telangana state, a Vidarbha state, a Gorkhaland state, a Bundelkhand state (and some others). Those who articulate these demands do so on the grounds that they represent populations whose livelihood needs and cultural aspirations are denied dignified expression in the excessively large states in which they now find themselves.
Before the general elections of 2004, the Congress, then out of power, forged an alliance with the Telangana Rashtra Samithi. It made one particular promise and one general promise; support for the creation of a Telangana state, and the formation of a new states reorganization commission. After it unexpectedly came to power, the Congress reneged on both promises: the first because it was opposed by the powerful Andhra chief minister, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy; the second because it was opposed by the communist parties, whose support was crucial to the new government’s survival, and who vetoed a new SRC because the Bengali comrades did not want to give encouragement to the movement for a state of Gorkhaland.
The constraints of realpolitik compelled the Congress to abandon promises made in 2004. Five years later, it came to power without requiring the support of the Left. Surely it was now time to constitute a new SRC with three or more credible members? That it failed to do so was the product of apathy, inertia, indolence, complacency, in a word, status quoism. The consequence was a resurgence of the Telangana movement. The Central government, buying time, set up a commission under B.N. Srikrishna. The report, recently tabled, basically favours the retention of a united Andhra, and is sure to lead to a fresh and costly wave of strikes, bandhs, fasts, and hartals.
The experience of the past few decades suggests that smaller states are, on the whole, conducive to good (or at least less dreadful) governance. After a unified state of Punjab split into three parts, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and the now truncated, Sikh dominated Punjab have all witnessed steady economic growth. The hill states of Uttarakhand and Meghalaya are better off for having left the low-lying large states of which they were previously part, namely Uttar Pradesh and Assam. I do not believe that, for all their difficulties, the residents of Chhattisgarh are nostalgic for the days when it was part of Madhya Pradesh. True, Jharkhand does not appear to have significantly benefited from separation from Bihar, but its major problems — Maoism, the mining mafia, political corruption and so on — predate its creation as a state of the Union.
The commission that I am calling for — and which both reason and emotion mandate —would consider each case for a new state — Telangana, Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, et al — on its merits. Regions that have a cultural, ecological or historical coherence, and are adversely affected by their current status as part of a larger unit, could be granted statehood; for the examples of successful smaller states alluded to above suggest that they may more meaningfully respond to the social and economic needs of the people.
As a political experiment the Indian republic is young, and still finding its equilibrium. A bold government, a government that both understands the nature of the Indian experiment and cares for the future of India, would now constitute a new states reorganization commission. That government is not, alas, this government, which is damaged by a spate of corruption scandals, and headed by a prime minister who is cautious at the best of times. The unrest and discontent will therefore continue in Telangana, and beyond. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tackling Telangana! – Issue Of Identity Is The Strongest Political Urge – just as it is for Gorkhaland and all the Indian Gorkhas who have pleaded since 1907 for self determination in India ?!!
From Boloji.com & The Statesman Editorial, Special Article
By Rajinder Puri
14 Jan 2011: The current escalating crisis in Andhra sparked by the Telangana demand is a lesson of how politics should not be conducted. It provides a damning indictment of Sonia Gandhi’s ineptitude. Thanks to her India now might well be destabilized by yet another smoldering crisis. The current crisis started after the accidental death of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YSR Reddy. Because of sentiment the overwhelming view of Andhra legislators was to make YSR’s son Jagan Mohan Reddy, who was an MP, the new CM.
For no compelling reason Sonia Gandhi resisted the demand. As the demand gathered momentum she unilaterally declared her commitment to make the separate state of Telangana. She thought this would divide Jagan Reddy’s support. Thereby she selected a remedy worse than the perceived ailment. The strongest and oldest demand for separate statehood is in Telangana. Due to late YSR’s political manipulation it was only smoldering. Now it has been ignited threatening to engulf Andhra in flames.
Telengana is in fact the pre-independence princely state of Hyderabad. The Nizam ruled Hyderabad. The state had a cultural identity apart from the rest of the Telegu speaking people who are spread in 22 districts. Only nine of these were in Hyderabad, the rest in the Madras Presidency. In 1953 all Telegu districts were carved out to make Andhra, the first state formed on a purely linguistic basis. Later Andhra was merged with the Telugu speaking area of Hyderabad to become present day Andhra Pradesh.
There is a common fallacy that is destabilizing the world today. It is the tendency to view all political demands only on the basis of economic well being. This is happening because the corporate world has subverted the political process. Economic prospects informing the big business mindset have all but extinguished political sentiment. This is a global phenomenon. Consider the subversion of the European Union concept as envisaged by its original 15 founding members by the mindless expansion of the Community in search for bigger markets.
The Sri Krishna Report on Telangana states that Telangana is not more backward than the rest of Andhra. The Report and politicians in general miss the point. The demand for Telangana is not based upon economic considerations. Deep down it is an assertion of identity.
Identity that defines self rule or independence is crucial for the political process. Hegel and Max Weber wove an entire thesis around it. Karl Marx focused on economic interests as the defining criterion for global consolidation. History vindicated Hegel.
It was pure nationalism that divided Soviet Union and China despite a common approach to economic theory. In India the governance provided by British colonialists was perhaps superior to that provided by the rulers who preceded them or those who followed them. But that did not dilute the urge for independence that sought to assert an Indian identity.
India opted for linguistic states after being compelled by an agitation. However, in the assertion of identity common language is but one factor defining group identity. Ethnicity, religion and shared experience common to a contiguous territory are other factors. That is why the establishment of linguistic states was a half step.
A further study is required to consider shared history, dialect and economic viability of different territories to define statehood. The shared history of Telengana people united them culturally.
The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was against merging Telengana with Andhra. The 1955 SRC report said: “We have come to the conclusion that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana area to constitute a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State.” The government ignored the recommendation and established present day Andhra Pradesh in 1956.
There is need for a second States Reorganization Commission. It should study the issue of identity. There are dormant statehood demands in all the large states.
An inflamed Telangana could spread the demands for new states across India. It should be noted that Konkani Goa was not merged with Maharashtra due to its unique history of being ruled by the Portuguese. UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana were never considered as a mega state on account of all being Hindi speaking. The Commission should also consider the desirability of converting all metropolitan capitals of large states into city states playing host to government and assembly offices of the newly carved smaller states.
Chandigarh as a Union Territory successfully serves Punjab and Haryana. So might Hyderabad serve Telangana, Rayalseema and coastal Andhra. If instead of a panic expedient decision to create Telangana a national policy to review all large states had been announced the present discord in Andhra might never have erupted.
The issue of smaller states should not be clouded by the fruitless debate about comparative governance in large and small states. There are states in both groups that are well and ill governed.
The issue of identity is the strongest political urge from the village to district, state and national levels. For stable systems it should be respected and not submerged by a myopic obsession with the economic rate of growth.