User:Kalledasiddarth/Frequently Raised Issues Regarding Telangana

Subsequent to the announcement by the Home Minister of India, Mr. P.Chidambaram, on 9th December 2009 about initiating the process for a separate Telangana state, the Andhra politicians of all the parties have been peddling certain notions about the history, politics, development of Andhra Pradesh and its people which are misconceived, wrong and steeped in ignorance, indifference and bordering on arrogance. There is an urgent need to correct these misconceptions by bringing actual recorded facts to the attention of the public so that issues can be discussed in a rational and democratic manner. Frequently Raised Issues Regarding Telangana is an article to facilitate such a process.

Issues

Potti Sriramulu was the architect of Separate Andhra

Potti Sriramulu struggled for the separation of Telugu speaking areas from Madras Presidency to form an Andhra State. More specifically, he fasted for a separate Andhra state with Madras as its capital. This proposal of Tanguturi Prakasam was rejected outright by C.Rajagopalachari, the Chief Minister of Madras Presidency. While the proposal for linguistic states was accepted by the Calcutta Congress Committee in 1934, proposal for the formation of a linguistic state of Telugus was approved by Madras Assembly in 1937. It was only after the death of Potti Sriramulu that the movement for a separate Andhra intensified. The Andhra state was formed in 1953 with Kurnool as its capital and T. Prakasam as its Chief Minister.

The political evolution of Hyderabad State under Nizam’s rule took a different direction. Telugu, Urdu, Marathi and Kannada speaking areas and people were part of Hyderabad, a Princely State. It went through political turmoil when Nizam refused to merge with the Indian Union at the time of independence in 1947. The Razakars, the private army of the Nizam, violently opposed the merger. At this time Telangana also witnessed armed peasant struggle against feudal oppression led by the communist party. In September 1948, the Indian army undertook a violent ‘Police Action’ putting an end to the Nizam’s rule and merged the Hyderabad state with the Indian Union. The ‘Police Action’ also suppressed the peasant struggle. It must be noted that Muslims were a part of the struggle against the Razakars. Shoebullah Khan, the editor of Imroze, a progressive journal, was assassinated by the Razakars. After the merger, the Congress won in the first elections in Hyderabad state held in 1952 and Burgula Ramakrishna Rao became its first Chief Minister. Rao’s government brought progressive land legislation in the form of Hyderabad Tenancy Act that gave protection to tenants. By 1956, there was substantial progress in land reforms in Telangana. Bhoodan movement also started here.

Merger was against the wishes of Telangana people

When Telangana was merged with Andhra state in 1956, there was much resentment against the influx of people from outside states, including Andhra region. These migrants began to occupy most civil services posts. From 1948-1952, many from Andhra state got jobs in Telangana as English education and experience in British administrative procedures gave them an edge over the local people. They also obtained false mulki ( nativity) certificates to settle down and bought vast stretches of land. In 1952 the Hyderabad state witnessed a major student agitation, known as Mulki agitation. It began in Warangal but soon spread to all the other areas, forcing the Hyderabad government to appoint a committee to look into violations of mulki rules. The demand for Visalandhra that gained momentum at this time was described by Pandit Nehru as inspired by a desire for imperialist occupation of land (Indian Express, 17 Oct, 1953).

The first States Reorganization Commission (SRC) also did not recommend the merger. Consisting of three members, Justice Fazal Ali (Chairman), Pandit Hridaynath Kunzru and Sardar K.M.Panikkar, it recommended that Telangana could remain a separate state for five years i.e., till 1961. At the end of this period, if 2/3rds majority of elected representatives agree to the merger of the two regions, the merger could take place. There was opposition to the merger by a section of the Congress. The then CM, B.R.K.Rao too expressed apprehensions about the merger as Telangana and Andhra were two different cultural formations. Telangana was cosmopolitan with a composite culture of mingling different linguistic groups and had developed a distinct identity of its own.

It was in this background of widespread resentment and apprehensions of Telangana people that the debate on Visalandhra took place. Telangana was merged with Andhra State to form Andhra Pradesh, much against the wishes of the people. The fears of Telangana people were sought to be allayed through ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ which stipulated that:

a) Opportunities for employment in the public services, admissions to educational institutions for Telangana students to the extent of 1/3 of the total admissions in the entire state. Or admissions to Telangana colleges should be restricted entirely to Telangana students. This was to protect the educational and employment opportunities of Telangana people against the onslaught of more educated and opportunity-seeking Telugus from Coastal Andhra

b) After the proportional sharing of expenditures by both the regions, the balance revenues would be spent on the development of Telangana. This was to ensure that the resources of Telangana would be spent within the region that they would not be diverted.

c) A Regional Council would be established to ensure all round development of Telangana.

It is untrue to say that Telangana people or B.Ramakrishna Rao favoured united Andhra; it is precisely because of their fears that the Gentleman’s Agreement was formulated. Development was the promise given at the time of founding Andhra Pradesh to the people of Telangana. This has not been translated into reality till date.

Telangana was an independent, viable, revenue-surplus state at the time of merging while Andhra State was not

Andhra state had a financially difficult existence during 1953-1956. Telangana as Hyderabad State was popularly known comparatively enjoyed revenue surplus. Andhra state had low per capita revenue. Comparatively Telangana had higher land revenue and excise revenue keeping it in a financially comfortable situation. SRC argued that Telangana would be a stable and viable unit with an area of 45,000 sq.km, 1,13,00,000 population and 17,00,00,000 annual revenue. It had such surplus revenue (revenue account) that was sufficient to finance irrigation projects (expenditure on capital account). Considering the lag in education and employment levels, the Commission felt that a merger with coastal Andhra would result in diversion of resources, employment and educational opportunities for Telangana people.

Telangana was neither poor nor backward as it indeed had rich resources. However it lagged behind due to the absence of English educational facilities and employment opportunities under the Nizam. If the merger had not happened, under their own government, Telangana people would have attained similar educational and employment standards that people from coastal Andhra had. Eminent economist and the former member of Planning Commission Prof CH. Hanumanth Rao,points out that the recently formed states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal have achieved higher rates of growth than the targeted growth rate – 9.2%, 11.1 % and 8.8%, against the projected rates of 6.1%, 6.9% and 6.8% respectively (Eleventh Plan Document approved by National Development Council). Being bigger than these states, there should be no doubt that Telangana would prosper as a smaller state.

Telangana was promised opportunities and resources, but never received its due share. Where did the resources go?

Telangana has not received its due share in investment allocations, and the surpluses from Telangana (difference between what ought to have been spent and what has actually been spent) have been diverted to other regions. The accumulated surplus based on Lalit Committee (1969) estimations exceeded Rs.100 crores in 1969 itself and its present value would be Rs. 2300 crores (See Ch.Hanumantha Rao’s ‘Budgetary Surpluses of Telangana’ in Essays on Development Strategy, Academic Foundation, 2005, for more details). The revenue from Telangana region (excluding Hyderabad) has formed more than half of the state’s total income in recent times (2003-4 to 2006-07). Of the total sales tax revenues 75% and of total excise revenue 66% comes from Telangana region. Revenue from coal comes entirely from Telangana and at least 44% of income from forest resources come from Telangana. Thus, it is evident that Telangana contributes a higher share of revenue to Andhra Pradesh, the expenditure on the region and its people is far less (Rao and Shastry, 2009). According to an estimate, while Rs.1,30,856 crores has been spent on education in Coastal Andhra and Rs.38,247 crores in Rayalaseema, expenditure on Telangana is only Rs.16,338 crores. Total number of public hospitals is 270 in Telangana, while it is 666 in Coastal Andhra.

The Regional Committee that was supposed to ensure all round development of Telangana was abolished in 1973. Reports of Bhargava committee (1969) set up to investigate into the actual expenditures into Telangana have never been made public.

Contrary to the founding promise of AP to Telangana that revenues from Telangana would be spent for its own development, it has not received its due share in investment allocation. Financial surpluses from Telangana have not been spent here but have been diverted to other regions. Therefore, contrary to popular perceptions and claims that coastal Andhra people invested in Telangana or ‘developed’ it, the reverse is true. It is the resources of Telangana that fuelled the growth in coastal Andhra.

Telangana is growing under its own steam, but at a huge cost!

Growth is taking place in Telangana. This is also established by AP Human Development Report, 2007. Districts of Karimnagar and Warangal have recorded fairly good agricultural growth. But the growth has been achieved at a high cost. Unlike Coastal Andhra, especially Krishna and two districts of Godavari and Guntur which have canal irrigation, in large parts of Telangana, 70 % of irrigation is through ground water and deep tube wells (Subramanyam, 2003). The numerous promised but unfulfilled (eg: Ichchampalli, Dummugudem, Srisailam Left Canal), underfulfilled (eg: Sriramsaagar) or abandoned (eg: Devanuru) irrigation projects have meant that individual farmers have to make a much greater investment in agriculture. For instance, if we look at relative share of 806 TMC of Krishna water among the different regions, which is decided according to the proportion of river flow area and cultivable land, Telangana projects have been allotted 266.83 TMC of water against its due share of 552 TMC, but receive much less. Mahboob Nagar, known for its very high levels of distress migration and perennial drought, should have got 187 TMC of water but has received nothing till now. Coastal Andhra receives several folds more than its due share of 99 TMC. This is to the detriment of Rayalaseema too! Farming has become risky in Telangana, indicated in the high proportion of suicides by farmers. Telangana region accounts for as many as two-thirds of the total number of suicides reported in the state between 1998 and 2006. In recent times Telangana has been allocated a higher share in expenditure on irrigation (55%) than its share in population (41%). However, compared to Coastal Andhra, unit cost of irrigation is much higher in Telangana (as it is situated on the Deccan plateau) as lifting of water requires huge investments in pumping machinery and power.

The promise of ‘development’ was always made to Telangana people whenever they rose up against the unequal treatment that was meted out to them. The Gentleman’s Agreement (1956), the Six-point formula (1973) and the Regional Development Board (2006), given at different phases of Telangana movement, all promised development. Regional Councils, Mulki rules, Subcommittees for the development of backward regions, Presidents’ Orders (1975), GO 610 (1985), Girglani Commission Recommendations (2004), and many other promises have remained unfulfilled. The list of betrayals of agreements and dilution of safeguards for the protection Telangana and its people is painfully long. Strangely, from 1973, what the Telangana people were arguing as a matter of right to self-respect got converted into an issue of ‘developing backward areas’. Within this paradigm, a uniform approach for promoting accelerated development of backward areas became the strategy of the state. With this move, the state successfully nullified the special status for Telangana region accorded earlier due to historically specific conditions of merger. Telangana got equated with all other backward regions of the state. It became easy to project it as an issue of development and backwardness without any reference to questions of justice and above all to its self-respect.

Telangana issue cannot be reduced to that of mere ‘development’, but should be seen as that of regional justice and fair share in resources. When Telangana is designated as backward, the issue can be simply reduced to that of ‘how’ to ‘develop’ it, non-Telangana people can easily assume the role of the ‘developer’. Considering the nature and history of development that occurred in this region, the questions that come up are – in whose interests has this development taken place? Who have been the beneficiaries? What role did the people of this region have in these decisions? These are political questions for the settlement of which democratic self-rule is crucial. It is this the advocates of the separate state of Telangana are struggling for.

Telangana’s struggle for self-respect and self-rule is 50 years old

Telangana Rastra Samiti’s (TRS) emergence denotes only the latest phase in the movement for the resumption of Statehood for Telangana. It started with the mulki agitation in 1952 when students protested against the huge influx of outside people into government services in the region. Three students died in police firing. In 1968-69, the movement for separate Telangana lasted nearly a year in which 369 people were killed in police firing. The current phase gathered momentum with the decision of TRS president K.Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) to a fast unto death. When signs of his withdrawal soon followed the commencement of his fast, university students all over Telangana came out to join the struggle, followed by numerous other sections and their associations. While KCR decided to continue his fast, it is these sections that continued the movement in its various forms. Struggle for separate Telangana has become a broad democratic movement, not confined to a single leader or a party.

Culturally Telangana has never been integrated with coastal Andhra. Telangana Telugu is absent in the school textbooks of Andhra Pradesh because it is considered inferior to coastal Andhra Telugu, and its literature is constantly devalued. Marginalization of Urdu, the official language till 1948, has not only led to the neglect of Muslims and their habitations, but sidelined them from the domains of history and culture. Linguistic jingoism and arrogance of Coastal Andhra is also manifest in the culture industry which shifted its base to Hyderabad from Chennai due to the promotional policies of A.P government. During the last twenty years, Telugu film and entertainment industry dominated by Coastal Andhra capital has consistently portrayed Telangana people as either villains or comedians. Belittling of Telangana culture, language and life has become a norm in Telugu films and television. Their failure to incorporate the rich culture of the region where they are located and whose labour supports the industry is indicative of the large scale failure of the project of emotional integration that was sought to be achieved through the formation of Andhra Pradesh.

While the struggle for a separate Andhra was based on the ideology of linguistic nationalism, demand of Telangana statehood is against internal colonization in the name of linguistic unity. Telangana consciousness is shaped by the recognition that in an unified state their distinct language, culture and history have been erased and the interests of their region severely undermined. It is this consciousness that underlies the past and current movements for a separate Telangana state.

Hyderabad, an integral part of Telangana, was the fifth largest city at the time of merger, it still remains so

At the time of merger, Hyderabad was the fifth largest city in India, with underground drainage, two major public hospitals, many other super speciality hospitals, one large university, well developed road and railway network – these were put in place by the Nizams. It possessed several beautiful buildings that could house the important offices of the state. The city could boast of a cosmopolitan culture with Tamilians, Marathis, Telugus, Persians, British, French and North Indians living alongside Muslims of various persuasions. Irrespective of origin, many were conversant with Urdu or its local variant, Deccani. This long history of living with many cultures gave the city a culture of openness, where even the Coastal Andhra migrants feel included. Due to these reasons, Ambedkar recommended that it should be made the second capital of India. It is precisely for this reason that all the major politicians of Andhra state, including T.Prakasam coveted Hyderabad as a capital. Not a single town or city in Andhra state such as Kurnool, Rajamundry, Vijayawada or Visakhapatnam had even a fraction of the facilities, buildings or land for expansion as was available in Hyderabad of 1956.

Hyderabad’s unseemly and unsustainable expansion in the last three decades has been due to the relaxing of Mulki rules; conversion of Hyderabad into a ‘free zone’ where non-Telangana people were given free reign to set up industries and to get education and employment. The policy of ‘development’ of backward areas in the districts of Telangana got concentrated only in surrounding districts of Hyderabad. While industrialization in Telangana took place due to the initiative of the Central government, deindustrialization picked up speed during the regime of Chandrababu Naidu. Several Public Sector undertakings were closed down even though they were not sick. There was a boom in real estate and speculation. Land obtained from surrounding villages for industrial development was turned into colonies, leased out on nominal prices or donated to industries, especially the film and IT industries. Recently, in the name of Greater Hyderabad more mandals of Rangareddy, Medak, Mahboobnagar and Nalgonda have been merged in Hyderabad. Nearly 600 villages have been merged in Hyderabad so far. In this entire expansion, misleadingly called ‘development’, what happened was expansion of corporate capital-driven privatization. The local Telangana people gained little, either in education or employment or health. They in fact have lost their land and livelihoods. Over the last twenty years, public investment has fallen while profit driven enterprises have grown. As a result, the per capita income of Hyderabadis has declined, now falling below Visakhapatnam’s.

It is misleading to say that Hyderabad has been ‘developed’ by people of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. Hyderabad was considered good enough to be a second capital of the country in 1956 itself. While they may have set up some profit-driven industries along with many national and international companies, it is undoubtedly the substantial revenues of Hyderabad that financed its expansion, often at a huge cost to the local populace. It is a moot question where all these industries, including the Telugu film industry would have gone, if they were not given huge subsidies in land, power and taxes!

External links

• example.com