The Congress Working Committee (CWC) asked the central government to take steps for formation of Telangana state, bifurcating Andhra Pradesh. Among others, the CWC stipulated that the city of Hyderabad shall be the joint capital of both the separated states _ Andhra and Telangana. The UPA coordination panel, which met on the same day, endorsed the CWC’s decisions.
The constitutional process to carve out the new state has since been initiated in the Union home ministry. This has triggered a spate of anti-bifurcation protests across coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. While the rich Andhra capitalists with sizable investments and assets in Hyderabad fear for their properties in a separate Telangana state, students and the urban middle class who are spearheading the Samaikyandhra agitation apprehend a diminution in their educational and employment opportunities which are heavily concentrated in Hyderabad. Seemandhra fears are somewhat exaggerated and do not stand close scrutiny. At any rate, the high-level committee set up by the Congress is expected to deal with the apprehensions of various sections and assuage the ruffled feelings of bifurcation protesters. They can seek adequate safeguards and security for those settlers employed in government, public and private sectors.
BONE OF CONTENTION: Whatever be the strength of the sentiment behind, or justification for a single (united) state for all Telugu-speaking people, in the final analysis, the city of Hyderabad emerges as a main trigger for all the turmoil in Seemandhra districts. What should be its status in bifurcated AP is question that has been agitating the people of both the regions. Telangana politicians assert that the city is part and parcel of the region. They are not willing to share it with Andhra on a permanent basis. On the other hand, Andhra leaders vehemently assert that they have right to Hyderabad as it has been developed to its present stature due to their efforts which included large investments in its infrastructure. T - leaders contest this, arguing that the city has been developed by joint efforts of all including settlers from other states.
In a nutshell, Seemandhra leaders, including central and state ministers, demand that (i) Hyderabad be made a permanent joint capital of both states and / or (ii) the city be conferred the status of Union Territory ala Chandigarh. A third option mooted by them is to make the city the second capital of the country. We discuss below the merits of these options.
At the outset, the Chandigarh pattern simply doesnot suit the Hyderabad bill. Chandigarh was built by the central government in the early 1950s to serve as the capital of undivided Punjab. Subsequently, in November 1966, the state was trifurcated into Punjab, Harayana and Himachal Pradesh. While Simla was made the capital of HP, Punjab and Haryana lay exclusive claim on Chandigarh to be their own capital. The dispute was temporarily resolved by making Chandigarh, which is on the border of the two states, the joint capital and declaring it as a Union Territory. However, the city still remains a bone of contention between the two states.
LOCATION: Hyderabad lies within the heartland of Telangana. It was the capital of former Hyderabad state all through the reign of Nizams; It had remained so post accession to the Indian Union on September17, 1948 and post March 1952 general election which brought popular rule to the state. The city was never part of Andhra state which itself was carved out of former Madras Presidency in 1953 with Kurnool as its capital. It was only in 1956 when Telugu- speaking T-districts were merged with the then newly-formed Andhra state that Hyderabad automatically became part of the enlarged AP and its capital.
It is only logical and supported by historical and geographical facts that Hyderabad should become the exclusive capital of a newly formed T state and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be capital of a separate Andhra state too. Moreover, the city is at least 200 km from the nearest border of Andhra region. There is also no logic or reason why it should be made a UT except to cater to the so-called interests of a handful of rich investors or their feelings or imaginary fears.
Mere investment in a city or a place does not confer right over it. India is a free democracy and every citizen has a right to live, make livelihood, invest and acquire property wherever he/ she chooses. It is a matter of pride that enterprising Andhra entrepreneurs have made large investments not only in Hyderabad but across the country where their properties are as safe as can be expected. (Why don’t they invest within Andhra-Seema hinterland and make it prosperous?)
WHY 10 YEARS?: Considering historical, geographical and logistic factors, it would be prudent for Andhra politicians to gracefully abandon their claim to a distant Hyderabad and choose, instead, a suitable location for developing their own capital, hopefully with substantial central financial assistance. A central place within the VGTM (Vijayawada-Guntur- Tenali-Mangalagiri) complex would fit the bill eminently.
The prospect of Hyderabad being made a joint capital of soon-to-be formed separate states for a period of ten years is a god-send for Andhra entrepreneurs for making investments in their own state. It would also enable the new state to develop a few select towns and cities on a par with Hyderabad capable of providing substantial educational and employment opportunities through setting up institutions/organisations like a central university, IIT, research centres in various fields comparable with Hyderabad besides developing ports and SEZs along the long coastal corridor. It would be wise on the part of Andhra politicians to hasten the building of their own capital instead of waiting (and wasting) for ten years.
VR Rao is a former Indian Statistical Service officer and worked in Intelligence Bureau.
(email: vramachandrar@gmail.com)