Telangana: The Consequence of a Trial Marriage that Failed

MOHAN GURUSWAMY:

Telangana: The Consequence of a Trial Marriage that  Failed.

The integration of the Telangana region of the erstwhile Hyderabad state and Andhra region of the old Madras state in 1956 was intended to be a trial marriage. The Andhra’s of Madras were the ones who wanted a Telugu state. It was originally a rallying call of the communists that was deftly appropriated by ambitious Congressmen in Madras wanting a more active share of the pomp and prize of high offices, not possible in the composite Madras state. 

The people of Telangana always had doubts about this union, and the vivisection of Hyderabad state. It took all the charm and authority of Jawaharlal Nehru to persuade Telangana Congress leaders to accept a trial. Jawaharlal cajoled them to give it a try for five years. If it doesn’t work for you, come back to me and we will do something about it was the implicit assurance. They don’t make leaders bigger and taller than Jawaharlal and when he gave an assurance it was taken.

The case for a separate Telangana was not based on an economic argument then. Our story is of  a deep cultural divide between two peoples united by language but divided by habits, values, history and culture. We know that language alone cannot be the basis of statehood. German is spoken in Austria as well, but Germany and Austria are different countries. Ukrainian and Russian are 90% identical. The Ukraine in Russian means border territory. Yet they are separate countries. Within India, the four BIMARU states (Bihar, MP, Rajasthan and UP) have dozens of dialects latticed together by Hindi. Yet they are separate states. 

Language like religion cannot be the sole basis of nationality. The story of Pakistan tells us that you can never be united by religion alone. The story of Germany and Austria tells us that you can never be united by language alone. And the story of Spain and Portugal tells us that you cannot even be united by a confined geography.

India is a vast mosaic of peoples where colors, sounds, shapes and landscapes change after every few hours of road travel. To argue that all Telugu speaking people are one is nonsensical. No state in India, even a small one like Nagaland can claim a monochromatic oneness. In Nagaland behind every successive ridgeline there is another tribe speaking a different language and wearing a different tartan. Tangkhul and Angami, or Konyak and Ao are as different as Telugu is from Tamil and Bengali from Oriya. Andhra Pradesh is not an exception.

Two centuries ago when the Nizam of Hyderabad ceded the Circars and the British Presidency usurped the Rayalaseema region, the basis of separateness was established. Geography only accentuated it. The British invested in education and enriched the delta districts with canals and roads. Even without the tax revenues of the Circars, the Nizam was the richest man on earth. Even richer than the British sovereign he was a vassal to. It tells a lot about the kind of regime the Nizam’s ran. The hard soil and constant toil for so little, and the prolonged subservience to an Urdu speaking elite made the people of Telangana different and also disadvantaged compared to their other Telugu-speaking brothers. This fact is indisputable.

Large states in India are really large. If UP were a country, it would be the sixth largest one in the world. AP is bigger than the UK. Large states in a centralized dispensation are difficult to govern. They make the government distant from the people. They are inefficient and wasteful.  And you cannot have uniform policies over large tracts with different agro-climatic and socio-cultural regions. Aristotle wisely opined that “it is an injustice to treat equals as unequal’s, just as it is an injustice to treat unequal’s are equals.” Which today is broadly the complaint of the Telangana people.

We have backwardness written into our geography. We have backwardness written into our sociology. And we have backwardness hardwired into our mentality. Even if the dubious arguments that more money has flowed into Telangana and Telangana has progressed more than the other two regions advanced by the Srikrishna Committee are accepted, it still does not erase the argument in favor of a smaller state. I have dealt with the speciousness of the economic argument elsewhere. A smaller state does not threaten the more recent settlers, just as it didn’t the old settlers. Ask the Maharashtrians of Sultan Bazar, the Gujarathis of Jeera, the Tamilians of Walker Town, the Marwari’s of Maharajganj, the Rajputs of Dhoolpet and even the Andhra’s of Mushirabad. Telangana has been home to many others. It’s only that the sons of the soil had not fared as well as others. 

The situation was redressed in 2014 and it had dramatic consequences. The once arid and poor region became India’s greener and wealthier region. Small states work. 

Mohan Guruswamy

Email: mohanguru@gmail.com