Political
Sabotage In Telangana:
Some Unanswered Questions
By Dr.K.Vidyasagar
08 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
There
are several instances in the history of political movements in India
and elsewhere that show how the question of leadership assumes very
significance. Although movements are supposed to throw leaders and elevate
them during the course of movements, the other way round is also possible
in the case of some popular movements in the country. Take the case
of Jai Telangana movement of late 1960s. In this instance, political
leaders led the movement to its nadir, but failed to sustain it thereafter,
and thus worth noting. The movement attracted the national headlines
and thereby secured the popular support in the elections held in 1971.
Like the JP Movement of mid 70s, the Jai Telangana movement was a popular
youth movement. Incidentally, it was Indira Gandhi who faced the challenges
of both these movements, and failed to manipulate them electorally.
Failed to respond to such political upheavals in a democratic manner,
she had to resort to anti-democratic and coercive means, only to betray
the spirit of those movements. Of course, the leaders and followers
of these movements tried to shirk their responsibilities for their acts
of collusion with Indira Gandhi, overtly or covertly. They proved to
be the sabotagers of such historic movements.
In the case of Jai Telangana
movement, once Congress Union Steel Minister, Marri Chenna Reddy hijacked
the Telangana Praja Samiti (TPS) movement of students and employees
of Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh and led it to its successful end.
Chenna Reddy replaced its first president A.Madanmohan so as to politicalise
the movement. Accordingly, this movement-turned party, that secured
the popular mandate in terms of winning 11 Loksabha seats (out of 14
seats), swimming across all the currents against the entrenched Congress
and the Communists, from the region. Failed to take on the Durga-Indira
Gandhi, the Chenna reddy leadership had to yield to the pressures and
favours of the Prime Minister. Thus he had to surrender all the TPS’s
MPs to Indira Gandhi for few crumbs and thereby sabotaged the movement
once for all. However, there was not much noise raised against the act
of betrayal, from any quarter including the followers of the TPS. What
is discernible from this instance is that the leadership is like a double-edged
sword, which can ensure success of a movement, or else it can water
down the movements as and when they choose to do so. Thus, the leadership
is very crucial in any democratic movement. Although the Telangana movement
has always been a democratic one, as the popular mandate was recorded
on couple of occasions, the leadership played a dubious role. Unless
the leaders are exemplary, one cannot expect them to perform better.
Was the ‘gentlemen
agreement’ not an historical blunder?
It is pertinent to recollect
the violation of this agreement by the first ever chief minister of
Andhra Pradesh, Neelam Sanjeeva reddy ridiculing the post of Deputy
Chief ministership as sixth finger and thus useless! While he served
as Deputy Chief Minister in the B.Gopal reddy’s regime till October
31, 1956, the post became ridiculous to him by November 1, 1956! It
was one of the six-point formulas that were violated on the very first
day of formation of Andhra Pradesh. Leave alone its sanctity and popular
support, the six-point alone was the basis for state formation. There
was no referendum of our people, nor was there any recommendation of
the SRC (which recommended against merger of Telangana with Andhra state,
indeed!) to that effect. Even the Hyderabad State Assembly was divided
on the hasty decision. Surprisingly, Prime Minister Nehru’s views
on the need of continuation of Telangana reflect the feeling of the
then Central government.
Then what precipitated the
illegal action of hasty merger was the imposition of Andhra Congress
leaders’ viewpoint in the form of ‘Gentlemen agreement’,
an historical blunder that was never respected either in letter or in
spirit. Who were these gentlemen? Which party they belonged to, by and
large? It is those congress leaders who were under the control of Congress
coterie that played a dubious role so as to bulldoze the Telangana leaders.
Since the Congress party members largely represented the ‘gentlemen
agreement’, then that party alone has to own the responsibility.
Incidentally, the formation of the state was contractual and conditional
(as it was subject to six-point formula/gentlemen agreement), and its
very violation on the very first day can be understood as negating the
state formation itself! How can the contract be continued if one of
its conditions were violated? Does it not tantamount to one-sided contract?
It is regrettable to note that such one-sided contract has been imposed
on Telangana for that past five decades, thanks to its leaders’
stony silence.
Can minority ever
outwit the majority?
In the Andhra Pradesh Legislative
House of 294 members, only 107 members hail from the Telangana region,
which can never have any veto power against the 187 members from non-Telangana
areas. Obviously, in the case of any democratic institution, it is the
view of the majority that always outwits the minority, not vice versa.
Since, there is hardly any protection for a minority viewpoint in the
Westminster model (British) of democracy, the minority is bound to bear
the brunt of the majority rule. Thus, the rule of majority, that is
of non-Telangana areas in Telangana region, for it is merged with Andhra
state in 1956, continues unabated. Even if the Chief Minister belongs
to the majority party, which obviously has to command majority in non-Telangana
areas, he cannot be expected to do develop, leave alone favour, the
region the way his people expect him to do so.
For instance, the fate of
G.O. No. 610 (that exposes how non-local candidates were appointed against
the local quota some 25 years ago) is still hanging in the air. Apparently,
almost all political parties favour, in principle, implementing the
G.O. No. 610, but did nothing as far as its practicality is concerned.
Thus, one can imagine its fate, as its implementation is left to those
biased bureaucrats who were actually responsible for the act of illegal
recruitment. How come some bureaucrats act so arrogantly that even Girglani
had to complain about non-cooperation of government officials in identifying,
leave alone punishing, those illegal employees who were appointed long
long ago? How come they fail to comply with the norms of government-appointed
Girglani commission for more than two years? Where do they get strength
from, or tacit cooperation of? How can the government permit such erring
officials to continue in office? It is not easy to answer to these questions.
For, it is the government that is dominated by the majority in the Assembly
of Andhra Pradesh that is responsible for the behaviour of the officials,
be it their action of appointing non-locals or inaction of covering
up their misdeeds for so long.
Whether the Telangana
CMs failed to ‘develop’ the region?
Thus, the arguments of ‘development
by Telangana chief ministers’ (P.V.Narsimha Rao, M.Chenna Reddy,
T.Anjaiah) can be dismissed as mischievous. It may be noted that Jalagam
Vengal Rao who cannot be considered as Telangana leader (as he migrated
from Krishna district), and thus continued in office without any interruption!
Unlike other Andhra Chief Ministers, Telangana leaders always appointed
Deputy Chief Ministers from the Andhra-seema region in their cabinets,
so as to implement the six-point formula. Leave alone ‘developing
Telangana’ our chief ministers never completed their full term
so far. However, paradoxically, it is only non-Telangana chief ministers
who not only completed their full terms but also created history. Chandra
babu surpassing the record of Brahmananda reddy’s long tenure
is a case in point. On the other hand, in the case of Telangana leaders,
even a great leader like PV could not continue as chief minister of
the state for one full year, whereas he completed five year term as
prime minister of India, not withstanding his minority-party status
at Delhi! In fact, PV was not a separatist like his predecessors, but
an integrationist! However, he had to lose his position (CM) for hailing
the decision of Supreme Court w.r.t. Mulki rules, as the Jai Andhra
movement demanded his resignation. Of course, it is a different matter
that even during PV’s regime, the state of Andhra Pradesh failed
to get several pending projects cleared, leave alone developing Telangana!
Thus, one can imagine the fate of Telangana, in any sector. Viewed in
this backdrop, one finds it odd to offer convincing answers to critics
who raise questions like why did Telangana leaders(as CMs and PM) fail
to develop the region, why do these leaders keep mum when there were
discriminatory policies being pursued, why did the Telangana intellectuals
raise their voice only when there were non-congress regimes in the state,
and whether there was any mandate for Telangana leaders to share power
with the Congress party that makes a volte-face on the demand of state.
In any case, it is ridiculous
to view Telangana state demand as demand for either ‘welfare’
or ‘development’, be it regionally or economically, as is
propagated by the present chief minister. Because, once such argument
is promoted, then there are electoral communists ready to join the chorus
of raising the question of ‘backward regions’ and demand
to treat Telangana on par with those backward regions of the state viz.,
Rayalaseema, Uttarandhra etc. Then they would be generously seeking
the ‘packages’ ‘development funds’ from the
central government and thereby confuse the genuine demand of Telangana
state once for all. Further, it is also ridiculous to treat Telangana
issue as the issue of ‘size’ or ‘administration’
of the region, as is diplomatically raised by the parties and groups
like BJP and RSS. As a matter of fact, once the demand is conceded,
the Telangana would be bigger state than those existing 16 states in
India today! With a population of more than one and half times of that
of Nepal, the Telangana state would be of 3.5 crore size. Unlike other
three states which were created by the BJP in the year 2000, the state
of Telangana does not require any special money for the construction
of its state capital city, as the centuries-old Hyderabad is located
in the heart of Telangana itself!
Was it also not the
failure of the non-congress parties?
At the other end, it so happened
that the non-congress/opposition parties could not influence the ruling
parties and leaders w.r.t. development of the region. At least, they
could have strove for undertaking some irrigation and power projects
here and there in Telangana. Further, these opposition parties failed
to fight for ensuring employment opportunities, leave alone establishing
some new industries in their region. In the name of industrialising
backward region, the Andhra capitalists were cornering concessions and
subsidies on the one hand, but they were importing employees from Andhra
areas into Telangana-based industries. While Andhra capitalists were
permitted to pollute Telangana lands and fields and thereby to derive
industrial profits/benefits, they were not asked to employ the local
youth in the Telangana industries. Instead, Nizam-established industries
were being closed down and sold out to the Andhra entrepreneurs at a
throw away prices.
But still these parties,
particularly those from the communist ranks, albeit made some noise
now and then, but colluded with the ruling parties/regimes, as if the
Telangana development was not their botheration. Why is it that the
opposition parties were indifferent to rising unemployment in Telangana?
Why is that old irrigation projects were not being completed in Telangana,
whereas new projects are planned in Andhra region? Pulichintala project
that caters to the needs of third crop in the Coastal area is being
implemented on war footing is a case in point. Why it is that farmers
in the same state were treated in different ways, (for Andhra peasants
were provided CHEAP water with canal-irrigation, whereas Telangana peasants
were forced to go for COSTLY bore well-irrigation)? Why is it that there
were no agitations being launched when non-local candidates were appointed
against local quota, affecting the job-prospects of thousands of Telangana
youth? Why is it that there were no agitations against the failure of
implementing the G.O. No. 610? These are some questions that deserve
answers from the communist parties which believe in equity and equality,
linguistic unity, working class unity, peoples’ unity etc.
Was it not the communists’
betrayal of Telangana cause?
For those of us who have
studied the communist activities in Telangana, their silence alone would
be the only answer. Since they cannot reject these questions as illogical,
they have to pretend that their silence would speak better. Because,
they are simply subjective, biased and opportunistic, they neglect any
sort of objective analysis. They practice what they do not preach, or
preach what they do not practice. They are hypocritical and played the
game of villains, as far as Telangana is concerned. One can trace the
roots of the communist hypocrisy in their age-old struggle for linguistic
states. Their approach towards religion, region, caste and community
are smacked of their farce-class analysis. While they were always engaged
in class-analyses on the state, independence, nationalism, secularism,
path of development in India, their activities were influenced by their
opportunistic shifting stands. Their agitations were based on the sheer
electoral objectives. Their elections were being influenced by their
compromises on militancy. Their governments were being continued due
to their collaborationist policies with their class enemies. As they
colluded with their Andhra Congress counterparts in finalising the Telangana-merger,
against the popular will of the Telangana people, in the name of VISHAALAANDHRA
LO PRAJAA RAJYAM! They helped the Andhra capitalists to colonise Telangana
internally so as to continue loot and plunder unabated.
Take the case of CPM leaders,
who are playing the role of sabotage in Telangana, long before they
emerged on the Indian political scene. Their Bengal BOSSES were competing
with their counterparts in other states to attract foreign funds in
Calcutta, but opposing the same in Delhi. One can cite several such
hypocritical practices of the CPM, which expose their Bengal-bias on
the one hand and myopic view of Telangana. That is not all. There is
another dimension to their consistent opposition to the cause of Telangana
state. More than their Bengal-bias (as some would believe that their
opposition stems from their antipathy towards separate state demands
of Gorkhaland and Northern Bengal etc), the Andhra-bias undermined the
Telangana comrades. Thus, not a single Telangana comrade was ever elevated
to the level of State Secretary, leave alone making him a politburo
member! Two young Politbureau members, Sitaram yechury and Raghavulu(both
hail from Andhra region) alone are controlling the party affairs completely
today. Obviously, none can take on these Andhra comrades to question
their Andhra-bias towards their Telangana counterparts!
Thanks to the heroic Telangana
peasant struggle that cost the lives of ten thousand Telangana villagers,
the Andhra communists (P.Sundarayya) became the main opposition leaders
in the first Loksabha itself. Whereas, the Telangana leadership that
bore brunt of feudal capitalist onslaughts has always been the loser,
leave alone leading the Indian communist movement in Andhra at least!
For, they did not trust Telangana mass leaders to occupy the highest
party positions in the state till date. Thus, once Telangana mass leaders
like DVRao, Omkar and BNReddy were ridiculed and dismissed from the
party. On several occasions the party fielded Andhra comrades from Telangana
constituencies/areas, but not the other way round. In the recent elections
to LokSabha too, the CPM fielded a Bejawada Baburao from the Telangana
seat (Bhadrachalam), whereas in the elections to the Rajyasabha, the
party got one Nellore-Madhu-reddy elected. Even in the party positions
too, less said the better, as Andhra comrades were always given leadership
in some Telangana districts. But no Telangana leader is ever given any
such position in the Andhra areas! This is not just history. Even today,
Andhra comrades are leading the party units and frontal organisations
in Hyderabad, Rangareddy, and few other Telangana districts are just
a few cases in point. These are some bitter facts that are hardly covered
in the Andhra-biased media.
Finally, if at all there
are any obstacles that impact on the state formation, then it is those
Andhra settlers who had grabbed the government positions, violating
the legal- local-category norms by producing bogus mulki/local certificates.
Obviously, the issue of non-local recruitment (G.O.No. 610 is a case
in point) in Telangana region continues to be hanging in the air, as
long as the Telangana state is not formed. And of course, there are
some political leaders, incidentally, they are not elected representatives
of the Telangana people in any sense, (for, they are appointed by the
party high commands), who are the main hurdles in the formation of Telangana
state. The two invisible entities, bogus bureaucrats and political parasites
seem to be responsible for manipulating the Telangana politicians and
elected representatives for the past 50 years! This is the crux of the
whole problem that delayed the process of state formation. Thus, it
is time we realise how this problem is to be solved at once, if at all
democratic demand of state formation is to be achieved in the days to
come.
Dr.K.Vidyasagar,
Action Committee for Telangana, Hyderabad. Email:[email protected].
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights