TELANGANA - THE SEEDS OF LINGUISTIC STATES WERE SOWED IN 1920
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
By T V R Shenoy
Rediff
Monday, December 14, 2009
The flames engulfing Andhra Pradesh today -- now threatening to
scorch even distant Assam and Bengal -- were lit by the Congress as
far back as 1920, notes T V R Shenoy.
"There is a spectre haunting the Congress -- the spectre of Potti
Sriramulu."
I wrote that in April 2004 when the Congress struck its devil's
bargain with the Telangana Rashtra Samiti, agreeing to create
Telangana. All that Y S Rajasekhara Reddy and K Chandrashekhar Rao
had in common was a mutual dislike of N Chandrababu Naidu.
Back then I thought the Telugu Desam could play on the desire for a
united Andhra Pradesh. That was obviously wrong in 2004 but I was
right in saying that "it might have been better (for the Congress)
had there been more time to consider the repercussions, and to
prepare for them."
Actually, it has had plenty of time to think it through. The flames
engulfing Andhra Pradesh today -- now threatening to scorch even
distant Assam and Bengal -- were lit as far back as 1920.
At its Nagpur session, in December 1920, the Congress rewrote its
charter under Mahatma Gandhi's guidance. One of the changes was that
the Pradesh Congress Committees would henceforth be constituted on a
linguistic basis. This made no difference to the administration of
the country because the British refused to redraw the map to the
Congress' whims. But it meant that delegates found themselves sitting
for Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Karnataka, and Malabar rather than Madras.
That was the first step.
Sardar Patel, unlike the Mahatma, was no fan of linguistic provinces.
When he completed his great work of unifying India he pointedly left
intact the multi-lingual states of Madras, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh,
and Assam. Another notable addition to that list was Hyderabad, which
covered several districts now in Maharashtra and Karnataka.
After the Sardar's death, Potti Sriramulu made himself the flag-
bearer of the Telugu cause. He went on a fast to ask that an Andhra
state be carved out of Madras. Jawaharlal Nehru offered vague words
of support but no action. On October 19, 1952, Sriramulu began a
second fast. He died on December 16 while New Delhi dithered.
(Sounds familiar, does it not? Especially with the Congress again
milling around in confusion following K Chandrashekhar Rao's first
fast.)
The news of Sriramulu's death sparked riots in the Telugu-speaking
districts. On December 19, 1952, Nehru hurriedly announced that a new
state would be created.
The question of a capital for the new state caused more heat. Madras
(as it then was) was claimed by both Tamilians and Telugus. There was
talk of both states sharing the city, with Madras becoming a Union
territory. This ignored the fact that Andhra would never actually
touch Madras. (Once again, doesn't that sound familiar?)
Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, then chief minister of Madras state,
scotched the proposal. When asked, Rajaji said he was warding off
future trouble. When some spoke of Telugu cultural links to Madras he
pointed out the ancient northern limit of Tamil culture lay in
Tirupati. Kurnool became the capital of the new state.
(Again, Maharashtra refused to cede Bombay city as its capital or
share it with Gujarat when the state of Bombay was divided in 1960.
Sadly, common sense was found wanting when Chandigarh was allotted as
the common capital of Punjab and Haryana -- a major issue during the
time of terrorist troubles and a minor irritant both before and
since.)
In 1953, Nehru's ministry thought it could better Sardar Patel's
work. Saiyid Fazal Ali, K M Panikker, and H N Kunzru were brought
together as the States Reorganisation Commission. Their
recommendations regarding the merger of Andhra and Hyderabad
(Telangana) make interesting reading today.
Paragraph 386 of the report says: '...we have come to the conclusions
that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if
for the present, the Telangana area is to be constituted into a
separate state, which may be known as the Hyderabad state with
provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections
likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the
legislature of the residency Hyderabad state expresses itself in
favour of such unification.'
Let me simplify the above government-speak. First, Telangana and
Andhra would not be merged. Second, unification was to be postponed,
for all practical purposes, until the third general election. Third,
unification required a two-thirds approval by the Hyderabad
(Telangana) assembly.
The Nehru Cabinet ignored the recommendation. A unified Andhra
Pradesh was established on November 1, 1956 after Parliament passed
the States Reorganisation Act.
By 1969 riots were breaking out to create a separate Telangana. The
Congress solution was to replace Brahmananda Reddy with a Telangana
man, P V Narasimha Rao, in 1971. This in turn incited Coastal Andhra
and Rayalseema. Indira Gandhi was forced to impose President's Rule
on the state -- and you know the situation is bad when a Congress
prime minister does that to a Congress-ruled state.
Let us sum it up. The Congress sowed the seeds of linguistic states
in 1920. Three days of unrest in 1952 led Jawaharlal Nehru to concede
Andhra without consulting the government of Madras in any depth; the
same prime minister then overruled the State Reorganisation
Commission and forced the merger of Andhra and Telangana in 1956.
Telangana began agitating against the forcible union as far back as
1969. Finally, in 2004 the Congress joined the TRS to defeat the
Telugu Desam, conceding Telangana as the price of the alliance.
(And the Telugu Desam did the same in 2009. Neither the Congress nor
the Telugu Desam has the moral authority to oppose the creation of
Telangana.)
I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of small states. What
depresses me is the prospect that the Congress will make the
situation worse through procrastination.
Nehru accepted Andhra on December 19, 1952; it was established on
October 1, 1953. The Shah Commission was set up on April 23, 1966 to
demarcate the Hindi speaking areas of Punjab; Haryana was created on
November 1, 1966. Why is the Congress talking wildly of taking five
years to create Telangana?
Again, what is this talk of Hyderabad being a joint capital? Take a
look at the map; the city is surrounded by Telangana. The
impracticality of joint capitals was understood by Rajaji over Madras
(Chennai) in 1953 and by Y B Chavan over Bombay (Mumbai) in 1960. On
the other hand, there is a history of bad feeling over Chandigarh.
Why should anyone follow the worse example and ignore the better
ones?
One final point: There is much moaning and groaning over the
Telangana leading to the creation of more states. Why is everyone
scared of small states?
Madhya Bharat (not to be confused with Madhya Pradesh), Bhopal,
Patiala and East Punjab States Union (distinct from Punjab),
Saurashtra, Kutch, Ajmer, Coorg, and Vindhya Pradesh were viable
states up to 1956. Nehru forcibly merged them into larger states,
creating much bad blood.
Andhra Pradesh is essentially an unworkable proposition today. (Even
lawyers in the high court descended to fisticuffs over Telangana!)
Why not summon a second States Reorganisation Commission to see which
proposed states are viable? Or would the Congress prefer to wait
until Telangana is replicated elsewhere in India?
Tags: Congress Committees, Telugu Desam, Jawaharlal Nehru, Telangana,
Potti Sriramulu
More at:
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/dec/14/tvr-shenoy-asks-why-we-are-scared-of-small-states.htm
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
