Finally Telangana, the 29th State of the Indian Union, has come into being after a lot of drama and procedural wrangling by the government and the opposition in Parliament. The history of Indian federalism has come full circle with the creation of Telangana. Andhra Pradesh, which was formed in 1956 in spite of the opposition from the majority of people and political leaders of the erstwhile Hyderabad State, has over the years emerged as exhibit A in the arguments against the last round of reorganization of the states on the basis of ethno-linguistic contiguity rather than political-economic needs of a region.
The States Reorganization Commission of 1952 was constituted to bring the provinces, princely states and centrally administered territories with varying administrative authority and jurisdiction under a simpler federal structure of states, union territories and centre. The SRC agreed to use language as marker of ethnicity sub-nationalism and administrative efficiency in its recommendation to create new states. The reorganization of the states on the basis of language repaired some of the distortions in the body politic of India and it can even be even said that it was a relative success. The linguistic federalism kept the country together, which was not looking very hopeful after the bloody partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
Ironically, despite Telugu being the language of the majority of the people of the then Hyderabad State, the SRC's advice was against the creation of a larger Andhra. Even then the call for a larger Andhra seemed like a hegemonic claim on behalf of a Telugu linguistic community coming from Andhra region and the then city of Madras.
Now that error has been corrected, but the unfortunate part is that all the mayhem witnessed in Parliament has sent a wrong signal to the peoples of the two regions who share a lot in common. In the process, the nation has also lost an opportunity to discuss and debate how development and political-economic logic can be a better rationale for re-conceptualizing Indian federalism, rather than cultural/ethnic logic that was the basis for reorganization of the states in the 1950s.
The first blow to the ethno-linguistic rationale as a basis for formation of states was struck in 2000 with the creation of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. But even the last time, when the new states were created, Parliament failed to engage in a serious discussion on the growing sentiment associated with developmental regionalism in many parts of the country. Now when economic and social development is slowly but decidedly replacing cultural and sectarian politics, it was perhaps the best time to discuss a new federalism for a changing country.
Though the opportunity was lost in Parliament, now as the two states, Telangana and Seemandhra, come into being in the next few months, one hopes that the politicians from the two regions will see this as an opportunity to work on a meaningful decentralization of political-economic power that is entrenched in the state capital of Hyderabad to divisions, districts, taluks, and villages. This will help Telangana and Seemandhra show a new path to realize the goals of 'new federalism' represented by the73rd and 74th amendments.
By shifting the political discourse to decentralization of developmental agenda to local level the Andhra politicians will be able to overcome the ethnic conflict based on destructive and competitive chauvinism being fanned by some people in Telangana and Seemandhra.
The lead up to the creation of Telangana—the rowdy behaviour and pepper spray in Parliament—has already fostered some resentment among the two groups, especially in the city of Hyderabad where murmurs of 'natives' and 'settlers' can be heard. There are talks of reservations in educational institutions and government jobs for 'native' people of Telangana, and outmigration of tech-industry from Hyderabad. Telangana and Seemandhra need all the highly entrepreneurial and skilled people in city of Hyderabad for the development of impoverished regions such as Adilabad, Karimnagar and Mahbubnagar.
The experience of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh shows us that mere creation of a smaller states is not enough to bring development to neglected local communities. Ironically, smaller states can also lead to more corruption and cronyism. Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have acquired notoriety for scams running into thousands of crores.
Finally, the path to a better Telangana and Seemandhra does not go through Hyderabad, but passes through Adilabad, Medak and Nalgonda. The best option would be to leave Hyderabad to professionals and get out of the city to serve the people in whose name the struggle was carried out for all these years. If the politicians who led the struggle for Telangana now get busy accumulating power, land and money in Hyderabad they will be disrespecting the hundreds of lives that were lost in the Telangana movement. One hopes leaders such as K. Chandrasekhar Rao will learn from the falls of Ramesh Pokhriyal 'Nishank', N.D. Tiwari, Vijay Bahuguna, Shibu Soren, Madhu Koda, and others.
Anup Kumar teaches communication at Cleveland State University, Ohio, and is the author of The making of a small state: Populist Social Mobilization and the Hindi Press in Uttarakhand Movement.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
".. Even then the call for a larger Andhra seemed like a hegemonic claim on behalf of a Telugu linguistic community coming from Andhra region and the then city of Madras.. "
Really ? Where is the evidence ? Does the writer know anything about history ?
One of the most important political voices in Telangana is called *Andhra* maha sabha. This actively opposed the feudalistic and reactionary elements of the Nizam rule. Along with the communists, the Andhra maha sabha was instrumental in securing political capital in the Telangana region and thereby giving a rightful excuse for the Indian national army to liberate Hyderabad. Without this political capital, that would have just been an invasion. Neither the Andhra maha sabha nor the communists were anything but unanimous in their demand for a unity of Telugu speaking people.
The disgruntlements about the united state came about much later, when the educationally backward Telanaga (a direct consequence of Nizam rule) realized the risk of ceding cultural and political capital to the people from the coastal districts.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT