How do we think about neoliberalism and Telangana?

[R Srivatsan]

At one time during the current movement for a separate Telangana, much was made of the fact that Chidambaram had written a tract in which he came out in favour of the creation of a Telangana state.  Whatever the accuracy of this story, and keeping the more general picture in mind, it would be useful to speculate on the different reasons why a neoliberal economist would support the existence of small states in India.  Would not a neoliberal government try to cut down the cost of administration by keeping large states intact? Would not a small state increase the cost of administration at least two fold?

While the exact reasons may differ in the case of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh, it would be worth while to see the Chattisgarh model and think of what possibly happened in that context.  When the the sixteen districts of this new state were part of Madhya Pradesh, it is possible to imagine that their backwardness was hidden within the general statistics of the state.  In other words, the average indices of economic growth across the state would have been a cover for the poor performance in these backward districts.  Even though there were district-wise statistics, attention to them would be given a hierarchical priority based also on decisions about the most effective strategies of development that would improve indices, rather than on decisions to tackle the backwardness of these regions.  This would have kept excessive developmental pressure off these districts.

The separation of the Chattisgarhi districts into a separate state removes the cover of the better performing districts provided in the old state of Madhya Pradesh and exposes the new configuration to the full glare of development assessment.  Without this cover of the better districts and the evaluative strength they would provide, any government would be hard pressed to show some improvement in indicators and norms which, being liberal economic constructs precisely to demonstrate backwardness, are dismally low.  Under such pressure, it is all but certain that the state machinery would take rapid, indiscriminate and ruthless steps to ensure economic growth, keeping the tenets of liberalized private capital in mind.  While the establishment of special economic zones in other states may have other explanations, the ones in the new states would have to be understood factoring in these pressures on a development administration in a neoliberal era.  It is this pressure that has probably led to the intensification of the displacement, expropriation and destitution process, and the inevitable support to the Maoist groups in this state.

The separation of these states also distances internal criticism by civil societal activists and intellectuals, because of the related thinness of media and what is recognized as 'public debate' within them.  The absence of these factors also removes the arena or stage on which such criticism has a voice, at once making it a regionalist or identitarian concern by individuals who cannot see the larger picture -- one only has to think about the media presentation of people like Shibu Soren, to see the lack of fit between the kind of political action that is possible for him, and what is seen as a 'universal' national concern.  I wonder how someone like Shankar Guha Niyogi would have worked or developed his activism and politics in Chattisgarh today?  Would he have been either sidelined, or forced into a fully Maoist position?  How does one understand Binayak Sen's trajectory in relation to the neoliberal moves in Chattisgarh?

I also could not but look with unease at how Telangana, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand form a continuous worm like belt through the heart of the map of India.  How would this contiguity work out in the nation state's coercive neoliberal strategy with respect the Maoists and those who are conveniently labelled as their supporters?

While chatting about this with Ramana a couple of weeks ago, I had agreed with him that Telangana would not ever become like Chattisgarh, because of its strong left culture (and not to mention the crucial and redoubtable media base in Hyderabad) which contributes to a more visible universalist discourse.  At root, the geographic presence of the metropolitan city of Hyderabad in Telangana too is an important singularity and we need to keep this in mind in the context of Telangana.  And yet I feel that such an assessment cannot simply result a comfortable acquiescence to the inevitable goodness of a separate state.  The struggle for a separate Telangana would only mark the beginning of a prolonged struggle to shape the development of the state in a manner that meets the objectives and demands of the people of the region.   In this struggle, the question of neoliberalism and the mechanisms of development under this regime would have to be confronted.  This needs to be done with a kind of activism that would not permit being configured as extremism and thus slated for a policy (either wise or foolish!) of neutralization.  In very important ways, all our organizations and 'think tanks' would have to address the questions of Telangana centrally and with a significant commitment, if and when the state becomes a reality.  What would these questions be?

--
R Srivatsan
Fellow
Anveshi Research Centre for Women's Studies
2-2-18/49 Durgabai Deshmukh Colony
Hyderabad 500 013
Phone: +91 40 27423690
Fax:     +91 40 27423168

[Rama Melkote]

When pro Samakhyandhra supporter talk about Telangana as a more developed region  or as developed  a region compared to the others ,it is obvious that the city of Hyderabad is included in thier calculations. How does one deal with this in a seperate Sate of Telangana--the city centered development, the neglect of rural areas etc are all very major questions. A new paradigm of development will have to be worked out.

I agree with Ramana that the maoist 'threat ' may not be as serious an issue as it is in Chattisgarh. The nature of the T movement today is such that it is hard for any party or line to take over. The question of caste will impinge on every issue. also minorities.

The nature of the student movement has changed since the seventies. There is a left culture which today  is not that of the seventies.  The players are also different. The  major question ,I think is , how would all the identity movements work out a viable economic paradigm which would be ,to use the jargon,  inclusive ? How would it take on the global?

 

Rama