Several parts of Andhra Pradesh were crippled on Wednesday, the second day of a Telangana employees strike. This is not the first such agitation for the cause.
Telangana is a problem of denying the rightful share of an equal partner. It’s a problem of making promises when questioned and not keeping one’s word. Telangana is a region of 4 crore people now and at any point of time it makes up a little more than 40 per cent of population of the combined state of Andhra Pradesh (which is also made up of the Coastal region and Rayalaseema). You may know that this State was not a combined one till 1956. Telangana was ruled by a king and while the rest of what is now Andhra Pradesh came under the Madras Presidency during the British Raj. Because of this, Telangana was less developed than the rest of the State. One example of this inequality is the literacy rate. The first post-merger census of 1961 showed that the literacy rate in Telangana was a mere 16 per cent while in coastal Andhra it was 25 per cent and in Rayalaseema 21 per cent. Thus, when the idea of merger was mooted in 1956, based on the unity of language spoken in both regions, the people of Telangana raised doubts. ‘Elder brother’ from the more developed area might grab the opportunities in land, irrigation, education and employment, suppressing the interests of the gullible ‘younger brother’, they cried.
There were several attempts to redress these grievances. Four gentlemen from either side met with the Central government and tried to address these issues. They arrived at an agreement to protect the people from the less developed region of Telangana. However the agreement was not honoured and Telangana did not get its fair share in education, employment, irrigation, development and budgetary allocations. The protective mechanisms set up to monitor the agreement turned toothless. Though contributing more than 40 per cent in population and area and much more in river waters, forestry and mineral wealth, Telangana was not accorded its rightful share of funds and attention and in some case it received less than 20 per cent of funds allotted to the State. Protective measures envisaged in education and employment fields were not implemented.
Telangana Movement
Finally in 1969, the people of Telangana said, “this merger was based on the condition of protecting our fair share and since you have not kept your word, let us go our own way”. That was the year in which several of the guarantees to the people of the region were due to lapse. The protests began from the student side, with Osmania University the nerve centre of the agitation. Soon government employees and the unemployed joined the students, came out on to roads and there were bandhs and protests everywhere for over 10 months. Many students even lost an academic year. Unlike in 2011, the 1969 protests resulted in curfews and police firings. More than 370 students and youth were killed. Still the demand for Telangana continued and the Central government made some promises and the movement subsided.
Simmering Discontent
The promises made after the 1969 movement were also not kept and people of Telangana began protesting from the 1990s onwards. Though it was only writers, cultural activists, employees and students in the beginning, the idea caught the attention of farmers, workers, women, tribals, and all sections of people. Today even school children are demanding a separate state. In this process, a political party and dozens of people’s organisations demanding a separate state were born and the movement has become more widespread.
Slowly people began to feel that not only in being denied a fair share and violated promises, but also in being ridiculed, looked down upon and their culture and specific identity insulted, people of Telangana are at the receiving end. Then the movement for separate state has also become a way of assertion of independent identity. People began researching their history, culture and difference from the other region. A new way of looking at their own food habits, attire, idiom, festivals and behaviour came to the fore.
In 1997, the BJP government at the Centre proposed the creation of a separate state of Telangana but it was unable to get a consensus on the matter. In 2001, the Telangana Rashtra Samiti party was formed by KC Rao. The TRS had a single-point agenda — the formation of a separate Telangana state with Hyderabad as the capital. The TRS allied with the Congress party during the Lok Sabha and Assembly polls of 2004 and succeeded in having their demand for a separate state included as part of the party’s Common Minimum Programme. However in 2006 the Andhra Chief Minister Y S Rajashekara Reddy (who died in a 2009 helicopter crash) made it clear that he favoured a united state. The TRS withdrew its support for the Congress government. In March 2008, TRS and Congress legislators from Telangana resigned from the State Assembly in order to force the State to conduct by-elections. Four MPs, 16 MLAs and 3 MLCs resigned and by elections were held that May but the TRS only managed to regain half the number.
The political climate seemed to have changed by 2009, when in time for the Assembly and Lok Sabha polls, all political parties in Andhra Pradesh — including the Congress — said they favoured the creation of a separate state for Telangana. The Congress returned to power in both the State as well as the Centre and on November 29 that year KC Rao launched a fast-unto-death demanding the Telangana Bill be passed in Assembly. Rao was arrested but his move sparked off a people’s movement on a massive scale. Students and government employees were at the forefront of protests that shut the state down completely on December 6 and 7. The students even planned a huge rally for December 10, Rao was arrested and police troops were deployed through the state.
On December 9, Home Minister P Chidambaram stated that the process to create a separate state would begin and Rao ended his 11-day fast but it was not all easy going. People from Coastal Andhra and Rayalseema began agitations protesting the move. The Centre announced that no decision would be made without the consensus of all parties. Soon a Joint Action Committee for Telangana, comprising members of every party from that region, was formed and started agitations demanding assurances and a timetable of steps leading to bifurcation from the Government of India.
Finally the Centre created a five-member committee led by Justice Srikrishna to look into the matter with a deadline of December 31, 2010.
Srikrishna committee
The Committee submitted its findings on December 30, 2010. It suggested six different solutions to the problem at hand, with the option of status quo considered unfeasible. The remaining solutions looked into the feasibility of dividing Andhra Pradesh but which both new states sharing the capital of Hyderabad (as a united territory, joint capital, etc). It also suggested that the State remain united but that provisions be made to ensure that the inequalities between regions are evened out.
The Telangana movement rejected the report and its solution, sticking to its demand for a separate state with Hyderabad as capital. Agitations resumed, with a non-cooperation movement being launched by the JAC from February 17 2011. Over 3 lakh government employees have taken part in the movement which includes students and other pro-Telangana agitators. While on its first two days the strikes caused loss of `15 billion, the peaceful movement soon turned violent. Trains were left stranded, hospitals and educational institutions closed down, private property vandalised. The Million March, Cook-and-Eat protest and this month’s Postcard Protest are significant efforts the JAC has made to show its dissent.
Today’s Telangana movement is a multi-dimensional expression of people’s identity and aspirations. Since the essence of democracy and modern civic sense lies in accepting the authentic feelings of the others with due respect, it is the democratic duty of every person to respect the feelings of Telangana’s people. Indeed it is not a problem between people of two regions. It is only a problem of the people of one region raising its voice against ruling policies that harmed their lives.