Redrawing Andhra Pradesh’s map stems from the Congress’s electoral compulsions. Following the integration of 550 princely dominions into the Indian Union in 1956, language was chosen as the basis on which the new states were created. The only exception was the Hindi heartland which was so vast that it was considered prudent to create several states.
Implicit in the creation of linguistic states was the belief that language is the basis of culture. If the same language was spoken across a state it meant that it represented homogenous culture. But this was a faulty belief to start with. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was created on a linguistic basis.
The state was created much against the wishes of the people of Telangana. They did not want the region to be merged with the Andhra state (formed in 1953 after separation from Madras state) as they felt that Andhra’s culture was different from Telangana.
They roughly spoke the same language but the Sanskritised Telugu of Andhra was different from the Telugu of Telangana that was influenced by Dakhni, an admixture of Urdu, Telugu, Marathi and Kannada. Besides, the cultures of the two people were different and so were their festivals and food habits.
Coupled with this cultural disconnect were the different endowments of the two people. Under the Madras presidency during British rule, the people of Andhra were educated in English, but the Nizam’s state that governed the Telangana region used Urdu as the medium of instruction and administration.
As a result of the sophisticated irrigation systems the British introduced in the Andhra region farming prospered and farmers reaped surpluses which they reinvested. This led to a culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking among the wealthy. In sharp contrast, the feudal zamindari system, based on exploitation rather than enterprise, dominated the Nizam’s territory.
The formation of Andhra Pradesh was the result of a merger between two regions – Telangana and Andhra. But it was in essence an unequal marriage. Since the
Andhra region had no large cities (prior to their separation from Madras state, the Andhra Telugus treated Madras city as their own), the capital was located in the Nizam’s Hyderabad, a sprawling, well-planned city.
After Andhra Pradesh’s creation, the rush of migration from the hinterland to the capital also sparked an influx of Telugus from Andhra to Hyderabad. Two factors added to this impetus. First, with the downfall of the Nizam, a large section of the Muslim elites emigrated to Pakistan, Europe and even North America. They left behind vast, prime real estate that was purchased cheap by the rich Andhra folks.
Secondly, as English was the language of governance across other states, the authorities insisted that the positions of officers and clerks would be filled by importing qualified people from Andhra. The local folk, though cultured, had no knowledge of English. To add insult to injury, the migrants from Andhra looked down on Telangana’s denizens – as though lack of English knowledge was a sign of their illiteracy and absence of culture an indicator of their indolence.
The first movement for Telangana, which began in 1969 on the Osmania University campus, continued intermittently for two years. Indira Gandhi crushed the Telangana cause with an iron hand. Although the movement fell flat the spirit of Telangana’s people, spurred by narratives of economic exploitation, invasion of their land and cultural subjugation, stayed alive.
At the same time, the steady inflow of people from Andhra into Hyderabad and the overwhelmingly large population in that region aided in the narrative of domination. Politically, this meant that the Andhra region was more influential in terms of the number of legislators it sent to the assembly. The passage of time neither diminished the sentiment in Telangana nor caused the proliferation of a common culture.
The movement for Telangana’s statehood revived with the creation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in 2000. This time, the political movement was spearheaded by the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS). The Congress allied with the TRS in the 2004 elections to defeat the Telugu Desam Party which was in power for two terms and appeared invincible. But once in power, the Congress showed little resolve to create Telangana. By the time of the 2009 general elections, the Congress had gone back on its promise.
The Congress’s decision now to create Telangana arises out of political compulsions: non-fulfilment of its promise would mean certain rout in the region in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. There are renewed demands for the formation of new states and they will certainly gain momentum in the days to come. The pulls and pressures from various quarters will become increasingly strong, especially in the event of another coalition government at the Centre after the 2014 elections.
It is too far-fetched to assume any danger to the Union even if statehood demands elsewhere across the country are acceded to. If the United States can accommodate 50 states, surely the Indian federal system can run efficiently with 40. In a Union of multiple states, smaller states bring governments closer to the people and are more representative.
States’ reorganisation in the First Republic ensured the division of territory on linguistic lines, creating in the process large states. It is now time to explore a Second Republic with numerous smaller states based on their economic viability. For sure, both Telangana and the residual Andhra Pradesh will flourish economically.
