Every time Telangana people open their mouths, doubting Toms raise some concerns and doubts and questions. Some of these doubting Toms don't know the historical background, some others don't understand political strategies and outcomes. Some are protecting selfish interests while others think they are protecting unity of Telugu speaking people. Whatever the motives and basis for these doubts or questions and concerns, investigating and finding appropriate answers backed by facts, is essential.

Why are we hearing separate Telangana slogan again?
The demand for a separate state of Telangana isn't new. Telanganites have very clearly expressed their opposition a decade before Andhra Pradesh was formed. They reasoned that in a united Andhra Pradesh they will not get justice. Even after five decades, this demand is continuing. The reason for this is the experience of past 48 years that justice will not be done to Telangana and belief that it will continue to be denied to Telanganites in united AP. (Please see pages112 -117 for historical facts).

Top
Isn't Telangana slogan the creation of unemployed politicians?
Telangana demand is a peoples' movement born out of their problems. Are all the people robbed unabatedly, continuously for the 48-years and raising their voice again , unemployed political leaders? Who are the unemployed political Leaders? Are they the farmers that have been suffering for lack of drinking water, irrigations water, and cuts in electric supply? Are they the workers who lost their livelihood due to lack of new industries, and closure of existing industries? Are they the unemployed youth whose job opportunities are hijacked by outsiders? Are they the innumerable people who have been labeled and suppressed as terrorists because they raised their voice for Telangana? When people are subject to robbery and injustice and take to the streets, it is natural for leaders to enter the fray. Just because out of power politicians support Telangana statehood, does it stop being peoples' movement? In any movement, politicians in and out of power join in. Some even deceive and attempt to side line the movement, but they can't stop the movement. Movements continue until justice is served to the people. The educated that are the pillars of this movement aren't unemployed. They aren't even after employment for themselves.

Top
Why didn't the Chief Ministers that came from Telangana area work to develop Telangana?
It is true that PV Narasimha Rao, Marri Chenna Reddy (twice), T. Anjiah from Telangana were Chief Ministers of AP. Altogether they were in power for 6-years in four terms. It is also true they haven't made any noticeable development of Telangana. Jalagam Vengal Rao was a settler. He never assimilated himself in Telangana. He is credited with the disservice to Telangana by extending Nagarjun Sagar left canal. Then what about, Rayala Seema? There were stalwarts from Rayala seems that were in power for twenty years. (N. Sanjeeva Reddy-2terms, Damodaram Sanjeeviah, K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy-2 terms, CB Naidu-2 terms). Why is Rayalaseema backward? Fact is they slaved for the Coastal Andhra wealth and the privileged few of these wealthy that control the politics of the state. Fazal Ali commission recognized the consequences of mixing a developed area with a backward area and recommended that Telangana be kept as a separate state. If this country's politicians had the wherewithal to listen to the wise men, we wouldn't be in this situation!

Top
Isn't it detrimental to Indian national unity if small states are continuously created?
Out of the 35 states currently in India (28 states and 7 central possessions), 70% are smaller than Telangana. Telangana's population is 30 million plus. There are 25 states that are smaller than Telangana. If these twenty-five don't cause national unity issues, why would creation of a larger state be any dangerous? (See P119-120 for details)

Top
What would you do if the backward districts in Telangana want a separate state of their own after formation of Telangana state?
Backwardness of Telangana is a major reason for the Telangana state demand but not the sole reason. All ten Telangana districts have same historical background, geographic closeness, cultural commonality, language unity, and mutual understanding among the people. These factors are all foundation for unity of thought. Never did the people of Telangana districts express a desire or sentiment to be separate from the rest of the districts directly or indirectly. There isn't an opportunity for such either. In our country there are some other backward districts in various states. Are they all demanding a separate statehood? It is meaning less and baseless argument.

Top
Why do people with one language need two states?
If one language, one state is the norm, why do we have 9-Hindhi speaking states? Next to Hindi, Telugu is the most spoken language in India. What is wrong with having two states that speak Telugu? Some people claim that Telangana Telugu isn't the proper Telugu. Some others say it isn't even Telugu. Why should these people that make fun of Telangana language and ridicule its culture should be objecting if Telangana is separate state?

Top
Isn't a separate state, a nation dividing, people separating, demand?
If the desire of a people of a region to have their own state is a divisive act, then all states formation is a divisive act. In fact language based state formation itself is a divisive act. Same reasons that Potti Sriramulu the architect for separation of Andhra from Madras state, presented are the reasons Telanganites want their own state. The same argument used by the Andhras in the past is used by Telanganites now. If it was not an objectionable demand then how could it be objectionable now?

Top
How long should states division continue?
Staes re-organization is a continuing activity in India. Even before Fazal Ali commission this process has started, Example: Formation of Andhra, split from Madras. It has been continuing ever since, Ex: Eastern states division, Maharastra,Gujrath, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jarkhand, Uttaranchal, Chattisghad. Why should there be any objections for Telangana formation when there were no such objections for these states formation?

Top
There are other backward areas in the state. Why should only Telangana people have a separate state of their own?
Just as Telangana, Rayalaseema and north Andhra have been discriminated. True. But, additionally Telangana has been systemically robbed. Diversion of this regions natural resources, water, under ground resources and their income to other areas, the robbing of jobs from the region's people, Colonization aren't directed at other areas. Additionally the Telanganites have been subject to ridicule with respect to the language and the politicians have been looked down upon to the extent they lost their own self image. To preserve their self respect and to protect their region's natural resources, people of Telangana want their own state.

Top
Aren't Naxalites the cause of Telangana's backwardness?
Only people that don't understand or like to conveniently ignore historical facts would ask such questions. Naxals aren't the cause of Telangana backwardness. They are an effect of Telangana backwardness. Naxals came up in Telangana due to this region has been subject to continues neglect and systematic theft of its resources.

	If Naxals are the reason, then districts where Naxals activity is less should be more developed than those with strong Naxals presence. Then why is it that Mahabubnagar where naxals presence was low is further behind Naxals strong holds of Karimnagar, Warangal and Nizamabad?
	Similarly, why is Vizag one of the important centers of Naxals activity is a flourishing industrial center not just in state but also in the country?
	How is the Kothagudem thermal station which is in the middle of forested area able to complete its expansion under the schedule?
	How is National thermal electric center in Ramagundam (even though its electricity isn't used for Telangana) operating without any problems?
	How is the coal from Singareni mines being mined and sent to Andhra and Rayalaseema?
	How are Andhra settlers that bought off locals are able to flourish safely and prosperously in many Telangana areas?
	In Warangal forests how is AP rayons, a private factory, operating?
	How are the cement factories in Nalgonda singareni coal belt, those established by the Andhra Capitalists, able to operate and make profits?
	Who is responsible for the closure of Ajamjhahi mills, Sirpur sirsilk mills, Anthargam spinning mills, DBR mills, Alwyn factories, Republic forge, fourteen milk cooling plants? Didn't Naxals object to such irresponsible Government mismanagement?
	If Naxals are the cause of Telangana backwardness, how is the current Government who promised to complete all pending projects within three years in Telangana going to do it?
	The cause of 1969 Telangana revolution was the Governments partiality. There were no Naxals then.
	Who doesn't know that the powers that are used to the stealing of Telangana resources and neglecting Telangana for the past 48 years want to continue to do the same, and are using Naxals as an excuse? Otherwise why would the Government that started talks as a response to people's wishes is throwing stones in the talks process?

Top
Instead of asking for a separate state, why can't you fight for development within the frame work of united AP?
The promises of Telangana development have been made for the past 48 years in united AP. Before and after the formation of AP, Which promises were kept? Which agreements were respected? Which projects were implemented? Which principles were they bound to? From the first day of AP formation, till to-day, agreements are being broken. What were the united AP wishers do? Did they even express any concerns? How long should the Telangana people bear this and put up with this injustice?

Top
Isn't separate Telangana state an anti-Andhra people's movement?
Emphatically, no. Telangana people don't bear any animosity against the coastal Andhra or Rayalaseema people or the ordinary migrants from those areas to Telangana. Telangana people's anger is with: The rulers that are raping Telangana resources. With their supporters in Andhra and also from Telangana. Those that came to Telangana and think they are the rulers of Telangana. Those that control the state Government with their financial strength and rob Telangana. Those that ridicule, Telangana language, culture and their mannerisms. All those that become a part of Telangana and share in the happiness and sorrow of Telangana with the locals are welcomed and, respected and loved.

Top
What is there to be gained by the SC, ST and weaker sections in separate Telangana?
What did these groups gain in united AP in 48 years? Apart from Sanjeeviah being CM for few months, when did any of these classes have any power? What is the status of these peoples leadership? What is the attitude of current Congress, BJP, both the communist parties, TDP? Not only the weaker sections, even the forward classes of Telangana, do they have any opportunity to exert any real power? For these classes to gain power they have to become active. For the past few years these people are rising, becoming active. No matter how active they become, in the united AP, not only these but other classes of people will also not progress. At least the forward class in Telangana have come to realization that it is unavoidable in the society for all people to a rightful share in the political power. Because of this there is opportunity in Separate Telangana for true democracy represented by all people, to prevail.

Top
Andhras have built Hyderabad. Is it fair to ask them to leave it now?
Hyderabad was a beautiful city built by Nizam on the sweat of Telangana villagers. One of the reasons Andhras eyed Telangana was Hyderabad- a ready made beautiful Capitol city. It was fifth largest city before AP was formed and it still is fifth largest city. If Andhras contributed to Hyderabad, it was not out of love for Telangana but was for the convenience of the rich Andhras that have made Hyderabad their home. Hydearabd is still growing but not from Andhras coming to settle but from the middle classes and forward classes of Telangana moving to the city for security and for services and livelihood, as the village economy in Telangana is all but destroyed by neglect of the ruling class, and failure of monsoons. Besides, nobody is asking anybody to leave any place. India is a free country and anybody can go and stay and pursue their livelihood anywhere in India. Hyderabad is a cosmopolitan city and people from many languages and all states of India call it their home. Also, this isn't a separation of people like Pakistan and India. It is merely a separation of political and administrative machinery so people of Telangana can control their own destiny. The settlers are welcome to stay, contribute and share in the success of Telangana.

Top
Telangana Sentiment or Political opportunism
For the first time in the history of ANDHRA PRADESH ever since it's formation as a state in the year 1956, the State Assembly elections are going to be fought on the chief issue of separatism. It may be recalled that the state of Andhra Pradesh came into being under peculiar circumstances unique in many ways from a historical perspective.

While the Telugu speaking population popularly known as the Andhras constituted a distinct identity in the British ruled Madras province prior to the independence of India, their long cherished demand for a separate state for the Telugu speaking Andhrites borne fruit on first October 1953. But only after a long struggle which culminated in the death of Potti Sriramulu, a freedom fighter who lead a fast unto death in the month of August 1953, which ultimately forced the Nehru Government to yield to the Andhra wala sentiment, after brushing a side much resentment and resistance from the dominating Tamil population of the Madras state.

While matters stood thus, the other components of the Telugu speaking people in the Hyderabad State known popularly as Telanganites, constituted a majority in the erstwhile Nizam ruled state. It was popularly reflected a cosmopolitan and a pan-indian culture with significant Kannada and Maratha speaking population who peacefully co-existed for centuries. Urdu was a common language; besides several others speaking various Indian languages settled in Hyderabad since a long time.

The people of Hyderabad were actually quite ignorant of many British administrative practices, especially with regard to the English education, land reforms, civil services etc. Unlike their Telugu British ruled fraternity living in the Madras province, which like several other provinces in the country, until 1947. The Andhrites started settling in different parts of the erstwhile state, bringing in their expertise in the farming sector. Initially, during pre-independence days, the Telangana walas were very accommodative and courteous to their Andhra brethren but were stung by their opportunism in the name of entrepreneurship.

But, later on when the Andhrites successfully agitated for a separate state from the Madras province, alleging the discrimination from the Tamil majority, the administration started dreaming of forming a single state for the Telugu speaking people called the Visalandhra by integrating the state of Andhra Pradesh with the Telugu speaking Telangana region in the Hyderabad state. Quite contrarily, the people of Telangana started feeling insecure to the very idea of forming an integrated state exclusively meant for the Telugus.

Thus, ironically Visalandhra, a concept for integrating Telugu speaking people of the two regions was sought to be achieved by designating a unique cosmopolitan state of Indianness consisting of people who happily got blended as a homogenous society for several centuries under the various political establishments. The Telangana walas who franchised themselves as a distinct cultural society in the comparison of the Andhra walas were less than warm to the very idea of integration and fiercely protested at the very suggestion of such thoughts.

The need of proper recognisation of states in the country was imminent. In fact the philosophy of the Nehru Government to create or carve out the new states based on the policy of the linguistic territorial integrity, in order to form a homogenous regionally well-balanced and economically viable units. Upon the recommendations of the first States Recognisation Commission established in 1956, for the purpose of suggesting formation of and recognisation of new states has generated both the approval and resentment in the various religions.

Many new states came to being since then. But what is intriguing is, in several instances while the people who were never consulted had little choice in expressing the true aspirations, it has all along been the display of naked political opportunism exhibited by the political leadership of all, ignoring the true sentiment of the people. Once such instance happens to be the creation of a Telugu state in the form of Andhra Pradesh, which became a reality on the 1st November 1956. Much against the wishes of Telanganawalas, who were perturbed to assume an inferior position vis-a-vis the dominating Andhrawalas, who were widely perceived to be overtly smartly clever and optimistic even the commission has not favoured the need for integrating the Andhra state which the Telangana region in view of several disparities but the political leadership offend their willing contrast to the popular mood of the people.

Thus came about the political integration of a telugu state which was built upon several assurances promises and hence was a result of political comprise rather than an emotional unification of the people two regions whose commonality is the same language which they speak so differently. The promises failed as the gentleman's agreement entered into by and between the leaders of the regions was like a writ on water. Failed aspirations led to unrest especially among the youth and job seekers of Telangana who lagged behind the much ahead and educationally advanced Andhraites. Hence, the agitation for separation has begun even before things could settle. Now the issue was repeating in the lives of Telugus of Telanganas. What reasons necessitated the Andhras speaking separation from Tamil dominated Madras state were infact similary echoing in the Telangana heart land compelling the people of Telangana speaking to break ways from the forced pact of integration of Telugus in the state of Andhra Pradesh speaking on the occasion Pt. Nehru is believed to have committed the people of Telangana are at a liberty to seek divorce as and when their interest are jeopardized.

As a matter of fact in 1969 an unprecedented struggle for separate Telangana state begun for second time which turned violent resulting the death about 450 students, also got culminated in sham political settlement of leadership change. An Andhra Chief Minister replaced by Telangana politician as Chief Minister. But the truce was temporary, as has been reflected in the general elections to the house of the people. The people of Telangana voted overwhelmingly in favour of a regional party, which espoused the cause of separate state for the Telanganawalas. However, the leaders of the regional party( Telangana Praja Samithi) who were all former congress elements committed the biggest betrayal of the people's mandate. In the post elections phase the elected members of separate statehood for Telangana for the reasons best known to them and instead settled for frivolous benefits which the people never seriously wished for. It must be noted that the youth were totally shocked at the betrayal and it appears that many of them have lost faith in the system of democracy, which certainly means the will of the majority people.

After 1971 general elections to Lok Sabha wherein the regional party, the TPS has registered a big electoral success, subsequently, shattered the popular will and trust of the Telenagana people who whole heartedly and overwhelmingly supported the demand and sentiment for seeking separation of Telangana from the forced integration of the state could never seriously bring the issue before the people of Telangana again. It also needs to be remembered that despite several general elections held separate Telangana, but the people never seem to have accepted the fact that their true aspirations can never be waived off no matter how much ever the opportunistic political parties might wish to trick them and tame them by not presenting them a chance to vote on the issues dear to their hearts and consonance with their felt needs.

The sooner the politicians realize the fact that in a true democracy it is incumbent upon the political parties to offer their electorate alternative choices to enable them to reflect their aspirations if only to realize their true need and must offer to become eligible to represent their real need. It was in this direction the BJP announced their policy of creating smaller states. It must be said to the credit of the BJP that the three new small states were in fact created by it has part of their electoral assurances in their manifesto prior to 1999 general elections to the Lok Sabha.

Now, finally arriving at the issue of Telangana before the electorate, on the eve of general elections to the Andhra Pradesh State Assembly scheduled for March 2004, it is pertinent to analyze the respective stands being adopted by relevant political parties likely to be in the fray. It is interesting to note that, only two political parties have clearly spelt out their respective positions on this issue till date. While the present care taker Chief Minister Mr. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu is hell bent upon to oppose to the creation of a separate State for Telangana, diametrically opposite stand is taken by new sub regional politically outfit, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) founded by it's leader Mr. K. Chandra Sekhar Rao, who in fact was a farmer and senior politician of the TDP and an Ex-Deputy Speaker, who is believed to have architected many important political schemes while representing the TDP party in the Government and now is threatening to decimate the TDP from the political map of Telangana upon a single issue of separate Telangana. TRS is although a practical party articulates it's single point agenda of achieving statehood for the people of Telangana in the spirit of a revolution.

While BJP is the first party, which has committed itself to the demand for creating a separate state for the telangana before 1999 elections, it has failed to deliver in Andhra Pradesh what it has achieved in the Hindi heartland. Whatever reasons it has started until now are actually more confusing than convincing. It is to be seen in which direction the BJP is likely to traverse for the peculiar situation it always finds itself in AP, whether to chalk out its own course to realize its long term goals or remain content as a marginal player from time to time depending upon the fortunes of its regional ally is a perpetual dilemma.

Coming to the left parties which are orphaned by the so called unholy alliance struck by the TDP with the BJP have ever since founded it difficult to win on their own, having got used to the piggy rides. While the CPI (M) party has categorically stated that its stands for a united Andhra Pradesh finds it's cadres dwindling as the clock is ticking away towards the elections. Whereas the CPI is still undecided which way to choose as they are now being driven by the compulsions having a representations in the state legislature at any cost rather than stick to any principled stand on the issue of the Telangana. It appears the CPI might settle down for a truck with the TRS, which alone guarantees definite representation in the assembly. It may be recalled that the extremist outfit, the people war group was the first organization to expose the cause of separate state for Telangana in the nineties. But it does not believe in parliamentary democracy its views are more often appealing to the people to aspire for the cause rather than look towards its active participation.

Finally the stand being adopted by the oldest party in the country, the Congress party is a true reflection of its mind set. The Congress stand on the issue of Telangana is one of the biggest dramas ever enacted on the political stage. The dilemma it faces on this issue is a never-ending political tragedy, which is threatening to blow up all dreams of staging a come back, which is so essential for its very survival. Unfortunately for Congressmen, it was their own folks who sand the song of the Telangana much melodiously than the BJP which in fact benefited by its slogan of 'One Vote - Two States' just before the elections and rendered its ally, the TDP a clear electoral advantage, has ever since remained a silent spectator. The issue of Telangana is so vital and decision making so nasty to the Congress leadership because there is absolutely no consensus within their party whether to support or oppose the demand unanimously. Whether the adage of "dhobhi ka kuttha, naa ghaar ka, naa ghat kaa" shall become applicable to the Congress is to be watched in the coming days.

While all credit must be given to the two regional parties (the TDP and the TRS) who have not only set the agenda for enabling the people to exercise their choice in the coming election on this issue but have also pitched themselves so commandingly in the electoral arena, that for the first time in the history of state assembly elections, the national political parties are struggling to find their space and are as matter of reality have no choice except to align for or against on the issue of Telangana. And lastly, what clearly appears from the mood of the voters this time around is that they are very calm, composed and like to be more informed while the parties are agitated and restless. Therefore, whatever happens, all credit goes to the TRS for bringing to the fore once again an issue of separate state for Telangana which the people of Telangana once overwhelmingly desired and subsequently betrayed, must once again have an opportunity to express their true sentiment and call the bluff of political opportunism once and forever.

Top
Growing Demand for Separate Telangana and Unethical Politics
Telangana is today a hot issue and something no party can ignore to address. It has become imperative for every political party worth the name in Andhra Pradesh to acknowledge the issue of separate Telangana. That the Congress-I and Telangana Rashtra Samiti had a political alliance and 'controversial' understanding on the demand of a separate State during the last elections that dethroned Telugu Desam does not require any additional emphasis to bring out the importance of the demand for a separate State. Today the Congress-I at Delhi and Hyderabad and some senior leaders in the State speak regularly of the issue and also claim to be the sole force that could give Statehood to Telangana. What the politicos are harping on boils down to the "appropriate time" and the art of its interpretation. The Bharatiya Janata Party also speaks of being the only party that could get separate Telangana. Both parties ask for the price of giving them the gaddi to get Telangana Statehood. Today even the TDP talks of Devender Goud as the Chief Minister if there is Telangana. It is necessary to accept these facts to acknowledge that the demand for the separate State has a history and people's support and cannot be wished away by the changing equations of political parties.

Sreedhar's paper titled "Separate Telangana: Beginning of the End" published in Mainstream (September 29-October 5, 2006 ) requires some attention as it compiles a list of reasons that the Congress-I may have to deny separate Statehood for Telangana. The author argues emphatically that a Telangana State is not going to be a reality. It is very prophetic and based on the author's strong conviction about the attitude of the Congress-I that seems to have led him to such a conclusion. Sreedhar is more categorical than Pranab Mukherjee or Sonia Gandhi that the issue of separate Statehood is now non-negotiable. The paper may have been more serious and could have had more credence if the author was the spokesperson of the Congress-I.

Sreedhar's paper requires attention because of its questionable approach, rationale and interes-ting addition of new forces against the demand for separate Telangana. The approach is Congress-centric and personalised. Further, it draws attention to the question of national security and interesting forces coming into play like the choice of NRIs and lastly the futility or incompatibility of the inter-linking of rivers with the demand for a separate State.

He takes the view that there is no scope of another opinion on the matter of a movement that is more than four decades old. We make an attempt to briefly lay bare the facts and the limitations of the argument put forth by Sreedhar.

His enumeration of forces opposing separate Telangana include the ten lakh Andhra NRIs who don't like the State to split but curiously he fails to comment on what the thirtyfive million Telangana people want. Sreedhar is all praise for Sonia's deft handling of the issue but does not comment on what was the basis of the electoral alliance and coalition affair it had with the TRS that not only broke down but in the process exposed all political parties as shameless power brokers who make promises only to get into power. The paper states four major factors that have been decisively conclusive of the denial of the demand for separate Telangana. The movement lost its chance apparently, firstly, because it was not initiated by one of the Congress leaders, especially one who has the weight to throw around or disturb the peace of the Delhiwallahs. TRS leaders like KCR and Narendra failed to get the attention as they were from the TDP and BJP respectively. Secondly, the Congress started doubting the credibility and ability of the TRS to govern the State because of its links with Naxalites. Thirdly, the State has turned into a knowledge-based industry during the TDP regime which the YSR Government is vigorously seeking to strengthen by creating employment opportunities in a big way thus making the demand for Telangana irrelevant. Fourthly, more than one million Andhras who have gone to Europe and North America in the 1980s and are willing to come back to industrialise the State don't like the State to be split.

It further adds that the State of Telangana is out of question because the Central Government is wedded, more than the in the past, to combating terrorism, both internal and external. The 'economic development' close to the heart of the Delhi elite finds separate Statehood incompatible. Besides, the entire developmental strategy of the AP Government, which is tied to the inter-linking of rivers, will go astray with a separate Telangana. The list of why-nots is not over if one cannot ignore the smaller ones. The TRS did not show any concern for the State's development in the past three months when the Delhi elite was worried about the floods. Further, the stature of the TRS leadership (KCR and Narendra) is poor, the "Telangana political elite are a divided lot", the TRS leadership is alienated from the people and is no more than "a bunch of local leaders". That is the long and short of the arguments, predictions and rationale.

A few reasons against the separate Statehood are new and reflect the fresh forces and factors. They include the NRIs' resistance to the splitting of the State and the incompatibility with the current government's strategy of inter-river linkage for accelerating development with huge investments. And national security, although not all that new, does not permit today separate Telangana because of the threat of terrorism.

Approach
Sreedhar's paper is handicapped for its over-simplification of the Telangana issue to the likes and dislikes of the Congress. It is true that the demand for a separate State has to negotiate with the political forces including the Congress-I. But the paper fails to see that the Congress has also to negotiate with the forces of the coalition government that was not there in 1969. It is better to view and acknowledge the demand for a separate State independent of the strengths or limitations of the supporters and opponents of the demand in order to understand the roots of the demand. One could take the strengths and limitations or assets and liabilities of the stakeholders while making an analysis of the possibilities of success or failure in achieving one's demands. That is part of the situational analysis. Sreedhar fails to differentiate this and consequently is biased by the personality and party factors.

Sreedhar's paper is ill-informed, if not in poor taste, for the prejudiced portrayal of individuals. It narrows down the issue of the Telangana movement to that of the Congress party at one level. And it also reduces the issue to events from 1969 to the TRS' pull-out from the Delhi sarkar this year. Further, it takes a convenient view of the Congress being the Indira family with just two references to Channa Reddy and YSR. It assumes that everyone agrees about the growth of the Congress in quality or statesmanship from 1969 to 2006 because if Indira Gandhi was forced to be firm for reasons of "national security" Sonia Gandhi is guided by the same interest but also by deftness that was lacking in Indira.

Further, the paper is lopsided: while carefully enumerating every section including the Andhra NRIs who do not favour a new State, it keeps mum on what the population of Telangana (who were opposed to idea of Visaalandhra and the merger in the fifties, and had periodically been protesting against the violations of the promises, those protests intermittently erupting into large scale struggles from 1969 to the present day) want.

Several studies have differentiated to make an objective analysis of the movement by looking at the personality factors distinct from the movement and issues of regional inequalities and conflicting social forces reflected in the movement. Parties and personalities may or may not become the media for articulation of the social demands. Unfortunately Sreedhar's paper, commenting about a historical process spanning four decades, takes a a-historical approach.

It may not be out place to mention about some studies by scholars on the Telangana movement that kept multiple factors in view to point out that these were independent of each other and yet did not fail to see their interdependence. Therefore, they rise above trivial analyses and biases and also make arguments that are sharper and intellectually demanding as they address issues like regionalism, identity, autonomy, internal colonialism, nationality, social movements and so on and so forth. There are studies that describe and examine-rather than supporting or opposing-the social forces that emerged with challenges to nation-states and started confronting one another within the past few decades.

These studies may evoke agreement or further debate but they stimulate informed debate. Some of these studies include those of K.R. Acharya, C.H. Hanumantha Rao, Dagmar Bernstorff, Duncan B. Forester, Hugh Gray, W.H. Morris Jones, Selig A. Harrison, K. Seshadri, K.C. Suri, D.A. Washbrook among others.

Rationale
That the TRS party is non-Congress-I, that it failed to have any impact because its leaders lack the charisma of the likes of Channa Reddy and that Sonia Gandhi is smarter today than Indira of 1969 - these are nothing but stating the obvious. Four decades ago there was little of non-Congress politics in Andhra Pradesh. And that the Congress does not listen to less important forces only because they cannot make a dent speaks of the lack of moral approach to issues. It is only realpolitik that is stressed and this is also the disease of any other party. Similarly, that the 'Telangana elite is a divided lot' also lends credibility to the allegation that the Congress-I is run by opportunism rather than by any principle-based statesmanship. Similarly the analysis is affected by love and hate towards the Congress and TRS respectively. On the contrary it gives the impression that the TRS is of low quality mettle because it doesn't have the right pedigree. The TRS has the roots of the TDP and BJP. The paper indulges in trivialisation and liberally personalises the debate with regard to the movement by reducing it to the likes and dislikes of personalities representing political parties with conflicting positions on the issue of separate Telangana.

New Forces standing in the way of a Separate Telangana
It is mentioned that a million Andhra NRIs are against a separate Telangana. What makes the NRIs lose their sleep if the State is small or big? When these one million Andhra NRIs plan to start investing, which parts of Andhra Pradesh they would like to invest in is all mere speculation if not gossip. Has any study indicated that foreign investment flows are proportionate to the size of the State wherein the larger States are attracting larger chunks of foreign capital? Have the NRIs' investments been affected by one's affinity or love for a State or business equations? Most of the promised investments to Orissa are by non-Oriya entrepreneurs as much as many significant groups eyeing Andhra Pradesh are non-Telugu. Sreedhar's theory needs serious examination and if proved correct may recommend the recently carved States to roll back in time and go for a "rewind" or else they would lose the foreign investors. One finds there is more imagination than any fact in this regard.

But it does not fail to point out one interesting factor in connection with the NRIs' stand on the separate Telangana issue. It is that the NRIs are being projected as anti-Telangana and that they have only regional interests to serve rather than the spirit of a genuine entrepreneur.

Is the Inter-river Project pursued by YSR and Delhi Congress anti-Telangana

Why the inter-river linking project is incompatible with Telangana coming into being is a million dollar question. Does the proposed inter-linking of rivers project with massive money bags and endless controversies and violations going to make Telangana unviable? Does that mean the interests of overall development and equitable development, which is the stated objective of the inter-river linkage, only myths? It is assumed that river management and irrigation projects are guided by ecological and cost effectiveness and political mechanism facilitating a sharing and peaceful ambience going beyond the parochial and myopic interests of regions or States for that matter. Didn't Andhra Pradesh send water to Chennai where the people are not Telugu but Tamil neighbours? Is it not the job of the Central authorities to look into issues of larger ecological rationale and environmental justice? Sreedhar's arguments bring into question the credibility of the Central authorities under Congress rule. It's not out of place to see why neighbouring States like Orissa question the morality of these agencies. Does Sreedhar's fear suggest that inter-river projects should be opposed tooth and nail by those demanding separate Telangana before the damage is done irreversibly leaving Telangana deprived of water resources once and for all if the Statehood is delayed?

Is Telangana State going to be a Niche for Terrorism?

Although the excuse that Telangana will become a tool of the Naxalites is stale, the paper tries to dish out the same the old story. This argument has no credence as the Naxalite problem is not confined to Telangana alone in the State or in the country. Naxalites are also in the coastal region of Vishakapatnam, Srikakulam, East and West Godavari districts (Andhra Pradesh), Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and almost everywhere. It is also not out of place to mention that Naxalism did not take birth in Telangana and Naxalism of the Telangana region was led and guided by the Andhra comrades for a long time. Naxalism came from West Bengal and is very much part of our contemporary national ethos. It is strange that we find people suddenly becoming shortsighted to associate Naxalism with only Telangana. This is an ill informed alibi if not an irresponsible allegation.

Further, it is not a secret that love for Naxalites is shared by all political parties and not by the TRS alone. The TDP hailed the Naxals as real patriots - nijamayina desa bhaktulu (Naxalites are real patriots), said NTR. The current Congress-I party had promised peace with the Naxals during the elections. What written and unwritten agreements the Congress-I had with the Naxalites before and after the general elections had to be seen before speaking of the TRS' links with the Naxals. Also it is important to examine the connivance and facilitation of the Congress' senior leaders in mediating with the Naxals, if all the media reports and the admissions of the Congress leaders were not wrong. Respon-sible comments cannot be blind to these facts.

But what is more important is the 'possible' connection of Naxalism with or/and its place in the current threats of terrorism that the Congress-I wants to combat. Does that mean a separate Telangana will be a niche for terrorism and hence the Congress-I's jihad against terrorism will not allow Telangana? Is Hyderabad and Telangana more prone to the Monica Bedis or Telangana and Andhra Pradesh more predisposed to the violence that marred Gujarat or Maharashtra? Is it fair to subscribe to such communal fears and allegations against Telangana only when there is talk of a separate State or because there is a Muslim population of considerable size? Does it not amount to saying that Visaalandhra is intended to suppress the likely terrorist threat owing to the Muslim population of Hyderabad?

These allegations need substantiation. The Congress plays on anti-communist allegations as the well as the anti-Muslim communal approach according to their suitability at the "appropriate time". These are very old stories. These stark opportunistic positions of the politicians and prejudiced writings deeply misrepresent the reality.

Top
Telangana movement may bear brunt.
As legislators fight the flak for human smuggling and Parliament gropes for means to redeem its flagging credibility, a renewed Telangana movement could be the unlikely collateral damage

The taint on TRS MPs and MLAs has forced the worried party leadership to go back to people, with looming fears that ensuing mud-slinging with supremo K Chandrasekhar Rao as target could sound the death rattle for the oldest statehood movement which took three laborious decades to rise from the ashes of its previous failure.

As the human scam unravels, deepening its taint on TRS, a sense of despondency is palpable among those who worked assiduously for years to rekindle the dead agitation. "Parties and leaders are byproducts of movements. Even if TRS ends, the movement will not," says K Jayashankar, who helped form the fledgling outfit.

Having first jumped onto the Telangana bandwagon as an 18-year-old in 1952 in opposition to the proposal for the region's merger with Andhra, Jayashankar is only well conversant with a history of sabotages and failures.

The parched, impoverished land erupted in 1954. It took 14 more years before Jai Telangana movement shook the state again, throwing up the Telangana Praja Samithi headed by Channa Reddy. Striking a chord with people, the party swept the 1971 Lok Sabha polls. But Indira Gandhi, Jayashankar remembers, lured all MPs with promises. "She was the national monarch," he recalls, pondering over the fizzling out of the agitation.

The politics of co-option by an unrelenting Congress dealt a telling blow to the agitation. It took three decades of hard work by activists-intelligentsia for TRS to be born in 2001, headed by TDP rebel K Chandrasekhar Rao.

Partymen hold it important as it placed the forgotten statehood demand on the national agenda like never before. The party was born in 2001, after ground work was started by academicians in 1996. Revelations that its members were making money on the mandate given by the people could push the agitation back by years.

Says Jayashankar, "It is painful. But a movement, after sensitisation done by people like me, has to pass through political process which only politicians can do. It ends up in electoral process. And contemporary political culture takes over."

If there is an air of inevitability to TRS floundering, Congress is waiting eagle-eyed for the denouement. If TRS survives, Y S Rajasekhara Reddy could be in trouble in the next polls, having tied up with the regional outfit in 2004 to decimate arch-rival Chandrababu Naidu in 10 Telangana districts.

Pro-statehood intelligentsia, hopeful of TRS coming out unscathed from fresh bout of uncertainty, feels Rao has taken the sensitisation to a "new level". It is felt there has been a positive change in the movement's evolution. "It is totally non-violent, not aimed at the common man of Andhra. Six persons died in 1952 in police shootout. Violence happened in 1968-71. But this time, there was not a single stone thrown in six years," a leader said. With charges that TRS was run virtually by human traffickers, an apprehensive party is back to Warangal, with a rally to clear the air.

As an insider said, if the appeal succeeds, it would be a relief. Else, it would be history repeating itself.

Top