Congress and Telangana Decision

Congress party’s decision to divide Andhra Pradesh will have far reaching consequences for the Indian polity. It is likely to cause severe convulsions throughout the country. Clamour for creation of many new states is likely to overwhelm the political discourse in the coming months and years.

If the party indeed prosecutes its recent Working Committee resolution, Congress will have ushered in a departure from the principle of linguistic state as the essential and defining architecture of Indian Republic. If the party has an alternative framework and a cogent rationale in mind for the reorganisation of states, the process perhaps will be less painful. But if it had just stumbled on to this departure only on account of electoral considerations and a flawed understanding of the character and strength of Telangana agitation, there is cause for anxiety. Its unexplained move away from the 2001 position of establishing a fresh States Reorganization Commission (SRC) to look into the various demands across the country along with the demand for Telangana gives room to suspect that the party has applied its mind to the question only from the immediate electoral point of view.

 The Congress decision in favour of creating Telangana state comes in the wake of several polls forecasting a steep decline in its tally in Andhra Pradesh and many parts of the country. Perhaps its strategists are going for a calculated gamble that a pro-statehood platform in Telangana might yield some electoral dividends. It looks that is the only straw available for the party to clutch in a grim scenario. However, the separatist platform is likely to yield only meagre returns in Telangana while the losses are going to be substantial in the Coastal and Rayalaseema regions. Since 2004 the electoral performance of political parties that adopted separatist platform is unconvincing and uneven. Except in a few by elections that were held amidst highly charged emotions, their tally of seats was paltry.

The claims and assertions of the Telangana separatists are unsupported by economic data, history, political developments, and cultural narrative.  Every economic and human development indicator shows that the region has registered impressive progress. In many sectors, its development is equal or and in some even better than the other two regions. It is also necessary to note that the claim that it is a long standing demand is more of folklore in nature than a historical fact. The last time any demand for statehood raised from the region was in 1969. The fact that the separatists of ’69 were quiet when there was a demand for separation from the other two regions in 1972 is sufficient to show that the demand is less deep than is made out.

Congress electoral gambit might not pay off. But it will surely ensure the opening up of a huge can of worms across the country and is likely to consume the country’s political and administrative energies to douse the flames.

(This was carried in The Hindu Business Line dated August 2, 2013 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/is-creation-of-telangana-a-positive-step-no/article4982291.ece )

2 Responses to “Congress and Telangana Decision”

  1. August 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

    Dr. Prabhakar, this article betrays your ignorance.

    “Congress will have ushered in a departure from the principle of linguistic state as the essential and defining architecture of Indian Republic”

    What is the basis for defining states? SKC (page 391) quotes SRC:

    “The wishes of the people, to the extent they are objectively ascertainable and do not come into conflict with larger national interests, should be an important consideration in readjusting territories of the States”

    What is the importance of linguistic states? SKC (page 434)

    “The SRC discussed thoroughly the pros and cons of linguistic states, arriving at the following conclusion: “to recognise linguistic homogeneity as an important factor conducive to administrative convenience and efficiency but not to consider it as an exclusive and binding principle, over-riding all other considerations, administrative, financial or political”

    Does linguistic states concept imply “one language, one state”? SKC on the same page:

    “It also rejected the theory of “one language one state” arguing that there could be more than one State speaking the same language without offending the linguistic principle”

  2. August 20, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    “The fact that the separatists of ’69 were quiet when there was a demand for separation from the other two regions in 1972 is sufficient to show that the demand is less deep than is made out.”

    Here you go again. Let me remind you that when you made a similar claim in your post titled “వేర్పాటువాద తిమిరంతో సమరం” I corrected you.

    “కోస్తా రాయలసీమల్లో విభజన వాదం తలెత్తి నపుడు అంతకు మూడు సంవత్సరాల మునుపు ఆందోళన చేసిన తెలంగాణ వేర్పాటవాద నాయకులు మిన్నకుండడం చూస్తే, రాష్ట్ర విభజన వాంఛనీయత పట్ల వారికి ఏమాత్రం నిబద్ధత లేదని ఇట్టే అవగతమవుతుంది.”

    ఛా నిజమా! ముల్కీ వ్యతిరేకులు జై ఆంధ్రా జెండా ఎత్తినప్పుడు తెలంగాణా వాదులు మిన్నుకున్నారనే మీ ఆక్షేపణ అసత్యం. మచ్చుకు ఈ క్రింది వార్త చదవండి.

    “రాష్ట విభజనే అన్ని సమస్యలకు శాశ్వతమయిన పరిష్కార మార్గం: తెలంగాణా కాంగ్రెస్ వాదుల సదస్సు తీర్మానం” (ఆంద్ర పత్రిక; 22-01-1973; 1వ & 5వ పేజీ ).

    56 మంది ప్రజాప్రతినిధులతో సహా షుమారు 150 నాయకులు ఈ సదస్సులో పాల్గొన్నారు. సమావేశానికి హాజరయిన వారిలో చెన్నారెడ్డి, కేశవులు, నారాయణ రెడ్డి, జీవీ సుధాకర్ రావు, చొక్కారావు, రాజనరసింహ (ప్రస్తుత ఉపముఖ్యమంత్రి తండ్రి), రోడా మిస్త్రీ, పాలవాయి గోవర్ధన్ రెడ్డి, పురుషోత్తం రెడ్డి, ఎస్. జైపాల్ రెడ్డి (ప్రస్తుత కేంద్రమంత్రి), కల్యాణి రామచంద్రరావు, ప్రేమలతాదేవి, కరణం రామచంద్రరావు (తెదేపా హయాములో మంత్రి) ప్రభ్రుతులు ఉన్నారు. ఇబ్రహీం అలీ అన్సారీ (మహబూబ్ నగర్), శీలం సిద్దారెడ్డి గార్లతో సహా మరికొందరు సమావేశానికి రాకపోయినా తమ మద్దతు తెలిపారు.

    అదే పత్రికలో (5వ పేజీ) “ప్రత్యెక తెలంగాణా సాధనకు మొదటి మెట్టు) అనే వార్త కూడా చూడండి.

    ఇవి చాలా ఇంకొన్ని లంకెలు కావాలా?

    You choose not to study history, your prerogative. Can’t you atleast read comments on your own blog?

Leave a Reply