Telangana III

Here I address some more issues. This follows Telangana – A New State, Telangana II.

No Animosity towards Andhra People

Frankly, I don’t hold any animosity towards anyone regarding this issue. Not the government, not the country, not the Andhra people, not the Telangana people, not the Rayalaseema, nor the incompetent politicians.

Many people quickly conclude that this fight for a separate Telangana is against Andhra people. It is not. I have many Andhra people as very good friends. They will continue to be friends the way so many Kashmiris, Bengalis and Tamils continue to be my friends. Just because they are good friends does not mean we have to belong to the same state.

Many States in India have been formed without creating animosity towards the parent state. Chattisgarh came out without creating any overt animosity towards people of Madhya Pradesh. The same was true with Jharkhand and Uttarkhand. Haryana came out of Punjab in 1966 without major conflict.

Sometimes, it makes sense just to separate as a new state before the pent up frustrations of separation-seekers give vent to anger against others whom they believe are obstructing that separation. Here, if we prolong this new state formation, there is a danger that Telangana people may turn their ire towards the nearest and easily available targets - which is quite undesirable. Many colonial empires delayed the eventuality of independence of their colonies only to be booted out unceremoniously.

Fight for Telangana is NOT new

The movement for Telangana is not new. It has always existed since the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh itself after Indian Independence. When the new state of Andhra Pradesh was formed out of Madras Presidency along linguistic lines, a big chunk of Telangana from erstwhile Nizam state of Hyderabad was added to it against the wishes of many Telangana people who protested in Hyderabad. Later on, the popular 1969 agitation turned into a debacle when its own leaders betrayed the cause. Now, TRS (Telangana Rashtra Samiti) is championing this cause for its own vested interests. Just because its leaders seem to have their own vested interests, one cannot shoo away or dismiss the real concerns of people of Telangana who have aspired a separate state since the time of Indian Independence.

No other state has protested and agitated as much as Telangana did in the recent times. Yet, it remains part of Andhra Pradesh against its wishes. The agitation of 1969 was led by many student bodies of Telangana joined by the common people seeking a separate Telangana. This agitation spawned many leaders from Telangana who have gone ahead to become the Chief Ministers later on. These leaders have betrayed their own people when they called off the agitation in return for small sops for people of Telangana as compensation. These sops were soon struck down by the courts of India. Therefore, this agitation of 1969 became a worthless exercise disillusioning many of its agitators. The status has not changed much for people of Telangana. Their demands were never addressed.

Should we decide on formation of new states based on quality of its leaders?

There is a tendency to discredit a separate Telangana movement by besmirching those who are more vocal about it. Now, a leader in the form of KCR (K Chandrasekhar Rao) has rallied himself and his party TRS, behind one slogan- ‘Separate Telangana’. Many of these leaders have bad reputation and have also been convicted for various frauds. Some people quickly jump to discredit the movement of Telangana by portraying it in the light of leaders of TRS. That is a big mistake. This kind of reasoning was used as a common excuse by colonial powers for NOT granting independence to their colonies. They cited the wrongs in the local leaders to explain why they were better off ruling the colonies compared to the local leaders.

Winston Churchill could not make himself grant independence to India because he could not come to believe that Indian leaders were capable of ruling themselves. Speaking of Indian leaders, he said, "to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence". According to him, "India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages".

In his speech to the Parliament, he said, “…To transfer that responsibility to this highly artificial and restricted oligarchy of Indian politicians would be a retrograde act. It would be a shameful act. It would be an act of cowardice, desertion and dishonour. It would bring grave material evils, both upon India and Great Britain…”

Look at some of the quotes of the detractors here from the comments on my blog:

…the TRS party, the passport brokers and human traffickers talk about Andhra cheaters. It is very scary what would happen if these guys get control of this region.

TRS has dubious credentials. If those fighting for telangana are truly disinterested, then can someone tell me what made them keep quiet for so long?

And I again repeat, those who propound for seperate state have absolutely no vision for development.

Telengana will just be KCR dominion as he could not rise through TDP ranks as much as he wanted….

Even if telangana intellectual support "Telangana state formation" they won't rule this state because KCR and other political parties will not allow them to rule it.

The detractors of separate Telangana have launched a campaign to discredit the leaders of TRS to sully the movement itself. We all have to understand one thing here - that TRS is NOT Telangana. Many Congress leaders in Telangana support a new state. Many BJP leaders have always supported a new state. I will not be surprised if some other political outfit other than TRS, such as Congress, BJP, or even Telugu Desam comes to power in the new state after its formation. Did we ever check the credentials of future leaders of Uttaranchal, Haryana, Chattisgarh before their formation? Would we have stopped giving them a new state because of their corrupt leaders? Is that a good reason not to grant statehood?

Did Andhras loot Telangana?

I do not believe that anyone has looted Telangana. But we do believe that our resources and opportunities were denied to us. Jharkhand, which has many natural resources, was a supplier of many minerals to the factories of Bihar. Over a period of time, the difference in these two parts was so much, it warranted a separate state so that people of Jharkhand could benefit from the natural resources of their own land. I believe that the administration (that included all political parties) was not caring enough to ensure all sections got their due share. That I believe is the main reason for this ongoing struggle.

If tomorrow whole of North-East states agitates to separate from India, we have to blame ourselves. We continue to neglect those states grossly and blatantly. Not a single industry has come up, not a major project has taken place. We have to bear the consequences of our own policies. Such neglect cannot be done away with some artificial sops later on.

Conclusion

I think it is a case of pragmatism to create a new Telangana. Those who dismiss every idea of separation in India as politically motivated move have not studied history. Those who dismiss the idea of separation as setting trend for many more separations, even that of the country itself, are immature. Those who dismiss the idea of separation as nothing more than a fanciful whim of certain bored people are downright ignorant.

Telangana makes a stronger case than any other new state that was formed recently in India. All objections are flimsy and do not hold ground. Those who are opposing it are making fools of themselves the same way some many detractors who thought an Independent India was a joke were later proved completely wrong.

Update: The later parts of this blog are at Telangana IV.