POLITICS OF THE COMMON-GROUND

(The views voiced in the post are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation)

This post is essentially to revive the Barkatpura blog as a platform for internal discussions. I felt that we have little space for formal discussions (although informal ones galore :P) within the organization and the blog could provide that space.

If I have slackened in the use of formal language, proposed ideas that are not completely coherent and if I happen to hurt the reader’s sentiments, do excuse me. I am only trying to initiate a debate.

What better way to get people to respond than discuss Telangana?

The Telangana Debate

When the state is subject to hartals, huge political gatherings, heated discussions, student activism and self-immolations, how can you blame someone for being concerned?

Well I am concerned and I believe I should state my position on the issue. I am in support of the formation of the Telangana state as I believe it is an opportunity to address three related issues; democratization of policy-making processes, democratization of governance and lop-sided development (I will be referring to all three issues interchangeably from here on).

In this post I would like to address two questions that I felt would further clarify my position (as it has proved controversial to say the least). I will not be entertaining questions like- ‘how can you be from Andhra and still support Telangana?’ - from either of the regions in this post, as I think they question my ability to take informed decisions based on my understanding of what is just.

The questions I will try and address are as follows: a) How, I think, the issue of lop-sided development is related to the Telangana identity? ; b) How, I think, the formation of the Telangana state going to address the issue?

Social Aspects of Political Movements

History, I believe is evidence to the fact that political movements often have social characteristics that do not immediately relate to the issue at hand. I can confidently state two such examples off-hand. The independence movement, for instance, undeniably had a religious character. Most freedom fighters had used religion as a basis to appeal to people (including Gandhi who called his protest gatherings as public prayer and public fasting) even when the issue of independence could have been based on non-religious ideas of rights and freedom. Similarly the more recent Anti-arrack movement in Andhra Pradesh in the 1980’s was predominantly a women’s movement although the issue of alcoholism need not have been women centric. Similarly, the political movement against lop-sided governance and development has taken on the most prominent social identity in the region - Telangana identity. The fact that the social character of the movement is not directly related to the issue does not mean the issue can be side-stepped. The patriotism one finds for this identity has a history and therefore, is neither new nor irrelevant. It is relevant because those who have benefitted from the lop-sided policies in the past within the Telangana region (as well as the rest of Andhra Pradesh) are the dominant sections from the Andhra region. Therefore, the discontent that people of Telangana voice against Andhra-ites is directed at dominant Andhra-ites in Telangana and not (as often mistaken) at the people of Andhra or Rayalaseema. In essence, the movement is a situation where the people of a particular region are trying to amend their governance issues.

Importance of Internal Debate

How can the formation of the Telangana state address the issue of lop-sided development? Well the formation of the new state would have to be followed by restructuring governance systems and policy-making systems within the region so as to have greater representation and participation from its people. Issues of governance mechanisms can be taken up right at the inception and there is adequate knowledge in the public domain to ensure the exercise proves fruitful.

However, there are many from within the movement who would benefit from the formation of the state without having to restructure governance systems. Such people would gain not only from the formation of the new state but also from the existing power structures within the governmental set-up that do not allow for democratic governance. They would like to believe either, the issue is one of Telangana sentiment rather than the issue of representation or, the issues of representation can be dealt with after the formation. Ms. Rama Melkote, when she spoke at the public meeting organized by Hyderabad Forum for Telangana, said “Although many of us have a nostalgic view of Hyderabad, those who gathered in protest on the Osmania University campus believed it was more than just nostalgia…” She went onto to state how, it was believed by those who gathered in the Osmania University,the formation of Telangana would provide people of the region better education and livelihood opportunities. This distinction I feel is important as it captures the difference between those who want a separate state and those who want a separate state with better governance systems. In other words, there are forces within the movement that are looking to narrow the scope of internal debate so as to pursue their vested interests.

I think it is up to the people who constitute the movement to identify such forces and deal with them. Keeping in mind the Mumbai example where the debate on regionalism has been sabotaged by violent unconstitutional forces, the challenge before the Telangana movement would be to take the road less travelled.

This I believe is sufficient reason for me to support the movement’s over-arching ideas.