The 5th largest populated state in India, Andhra Pradesh has a very steadily growing market in place. Having 3 main regions, namely Rayalseema, Coastal Andhra and Telangana; the latter has gained loads of popularity. Being an elder brother, the largest, covering about 41% of its total land area, it has about 40% of the state's population and contributes to about 36.43 per cent to the state's agriculture, 43.18 per cent to the industrial output and 30.91 per cent to the services sector.
The reason behind its sudden popularity in 2009 was actually owing to a sudden violent movement. It initially began as a small uprising, spearheaded by peasants. This movement popularly known as the Telangana movement, is in the want for the creation of a separate state called ‘Telangana’ from the existing state of Andhra Pradesh. As of now it is due to become one on 2 June, 2014.
But why did people want a separate state? It wasn't economic as some say because if it were so, why would the centre have made a decision against the will of almost 60% of the people of the state?
The issue was purely political. It was proved so as in case of per-capita income, Rayalseema is the slacker. Another reason is that after the division, Telengana will be the net gainer of 19,000 crores, far greater than the other regions.
Hyderabad constitutes the main contributor to the region’s revenues, but even without Hyderabad, the state can compete with the other regions of the state. So if the reason for the division was not backwardness, what was it? Why did people turn this movement into violent protests?
The Sri Krishna report observes that in terms of income dynamics, Coastal Andhra has more equitable distribution of income in its region. The incomes of the deprived, labour class, daily wage workers, SC/ST’s have increased slowly but steadily in the decades of 1990 and 2000. Therefore, the standard of living is much higher in this region. As compared to that, the state in Telengana is not the same. In this region, the deprived and low earning classes haven’t even been able to improve their incomes and standards of living. Thus, the people face a lot of hardships and are therefore vulnerable to mass mobilization of people including political with promises which may be met or not.
Thus, these protests are a result of the relative deprivation of a certain section of people led by the same people who would have been responsible to keep the deprived state the way it was. Also, the leaders of these protests have been driven by the ambition of being the Chief Minister.
But why did people want a separate state? It wasn't economic as some say because if it were so, why would the centre have made a decision against the will of almost 60% of the people of the state?
The issue was purely political. It was proved so as in case of per-capita income, Rayalseema is the slacker. Another reason is that after the division, Telengana will be the net gainer of 19,000 crores, far greater than the other regions.
Hyderabad constitutes the main contributor to the region’s revenues, but even without Hyderabad, the state can compete with the other regions of the state. So if the reason for the division was not backwardness, what was it? Why did people turn this movement into violent protests?
The Sri Krishna report observes that in terms of income dynamics, Coastal Andhra has more equitable distribution of income in its region. The incomes of the deprived, labour class, daily wage workers, SC/ST’s have increased slowly but steadily in the decades of 1990 and 2000. Therefore, the standard of living is much higher in this region. As compared to that, the state in Telengana is not the same. In this region, the deprived and low earning classes haven’t even been able to improve their incomes and standards of living. Thus, the people face a lot of hardships and are therefore vulnerable to mass mobilization of people including political with promises which may be met or not.
Thus, these protests are a result of the relative deprivation of a certain section of people led by the same people who would have been responsible to keep the deprived state the way it was. Also, the leaders of these protests have been driven by the ambition of being the Chief Minister.
The reason of the division as given by the leaders of the movement is that the people from this region aren’t adequately represented in the political system of the state and consequently of the country. However, many fail to understand that just the fact that the CM is from a particular region doesn't ensure the development of that region. Otherwise, how would one explain the backwardness of Rayalseema when its leaders occupied the CM position for almost 28 years?
However, this isn’t the first time the government is facing a situation like the division of a state. We have witnessed it before in the case of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. The creation of both these states was handled by the NDA. The former was created on the basis of caste unity while the latter due to a tribal uprising. However, ‘The Telangana movement’ is a bit different than those which we have seen earlier. It is also different in the way the division of the state was handled.
It could be said that the UPA led by the INC was - what some would say – “quite eager” to pass the resolution which guaranteed the division of the state. This matter of this division was initially taken quite lightly by the UPA, where a lot of representatives were sent to ‘investigate’ and ‘check the matter’ and then ‘proceed with negotiations’. None of these initial so-called negotiations worked and all it amounted to was representatives of various parties leaving the venue in frustration. After due consideration, it was announced that they were to support the formation of Telangana.
The leading opposition party, the BJP itself was a bit confused. Why did I say that? Initially some representatives of this party were seen to be opposing the creation of new state saying that it will be a blow to regional and national unity. Later various well known spokespersons of the party gave speeches which indicated that the BJP too was for the partition of Andhra Pradesh. The reason most of them gave was that the protests were turning out to be ‘too violent’, which must stop and the people must be given what they want.
While various parties from Seemandhra, (the part of Andhra Pradesh left out after Telangana is separated from it) were strongly against any such bill which would allow A.P. to be divided. Obviously, there was a lot of tension in the state regarding this. In the end after a lot of violence, negotiation, protests, walkouts and amendments concerning Seemandhra, on 18 February 2014, the Telangana Bill was passed by the UPA government in Lok Sabha with support from the BJP and subsequently by the Rajya Sabha on 20th February 2014. It received its assent from the President on 1st March.
However, this isn’t the first time the government is facing a situation like the division of a state. We have witnessed it before in the case of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. The creation of both these states was handled by the NDA. The former was created on the basis of caste unity while the latter due to a tribal uprising. However, ‘The Telangana movement’ is a bit different than those which we have seen earlier. It is also different in the way the division of the state was handled.
It could be said that the UPA led by the INC was - what some would say – “quite eager” to pass the resolution which guaranteed the division of the state. This matter of this division was initially taken quite lightly by the UPA, where a lot of representatives were sent to ‘investigate’ and ‘check the matter’ and then ‘proceed with negotiations’. None of these initial so-called negotiations worked and all it amounted to was representatives of various parties leaving the venue in frustration. After due consideration, it was announced that they were to support the formation of Telangana.
The leading opposition party, the BJP itself was a bit confused. Why did I say that? Initially some representatives of this party were seen to be opposing the creation of new state saying that it will be a blow to regional and national unity. Later various well known spokespersons of the party gave speeches which indicated that the BJP too was for the partition of Andhra Pradesh. The reason most of them gave was that the protests were turning out to be ‘too violent’, which must stop and the people must be given what they want.
While various parties from Seemandhra, (the part of Andhra Pradesh left out after Telangana is separated from it) were strongly against any such bill which would allow A.P. to be divided. Obviously, there was a lot of tension in the state regarding this. In the end after a lot of violence, negotiation, protests, walkouts and amendments concerning Seemandhra, on 18 February 2014, the Telangana Bill was passed by the UPA government in Lok Sabha with support from the BJP and subsequently by the Rajya Sabha on 20th February 2014. It received its assent from the President on 1st March.
Both the major alliances of the country are of the opinion that Telangana must be created to give the people what they want, to stop any further violence. But that may not be the only reason for their want for the creation of a separate state. Both the parties (the INC overtly, while the BJP covertly) could also have or rather did agree to Telangana because the creation of a new state gives both of them an opportunity to contest for more seats in the Legislative Assemblies and therefore the chances of winning votes are higher. If the chances of winning votes are higher, the chance of them forming a state government will be higher. A stronghold on states like Telangana / Seemandhra can be politically quite advantageous for a party considering their aptitude for growth the former mainly in technology and the latter in exports. This may explain the haste in passing the bill.
Congress’s behavior reflected how they had cleverly calculated the number of seats. Andhra Pradesh - which gave Congress 33 out of 42 Lok Sabha MP’s in 2009 - was very crucial for the formation of a UPA – III government in 2014. A substantial fall in its tally could undermine the party’s bid for power at the centre. Previously it had lost its sheen due to the sudden death of YSR Reddy, followed by his son Y.S Jaganmohan Reddy’s rebellion against the party which led to the absence of a distinct leader, because of which turmoil continued in Telangana. Telangana region has a total of 17 seats out of which Congress won 12 in 2009.
Various political analysts believe that due to this move, the INC may not even be able to cross a single digit number and so, it is bonding with regional parties to boost its chances. Recent developments say that CPI and Congress have allied in Telangana. The BJP on the other hand has allied with the TDP.
It is quite unsure of which way it will sway. The creation of Telangana was a strategic move to increase the probability of winning seats. As of the case of BJP, it isn’t seen distinctly but it wouldn’t be wrong of us to expect its agreement to also prevail for the same reasons. Till then, I guess we shall have to wait for the elections to take place to know for sure.
-Pratha
Congress’s behavior reflected how they had cleverly calculated the number of seats. Andhra Pradesh - which gave Congress 33 out of 42 Lok Sabha MP’s in 2009 - was very crucial for the formation of a UPA – III government in 2014. A substantial fall in its tally could undermine the party’s bid for power at the centre. Previously it had lost its sheen due to the sudden death of YSR Reddy, followed by his son Y.S Jaganmohan Reddy’s rebellion against the party which led to the absence of a distinct leader, because of which turmoil continued in Telangana. Telangana region has a total of 17 seats out of which Congress won 12 in 2009.
Various political analysts believe that due to this move, the INC may not even be able to cross a single digit number and so, it is bonding with regional parties to boost its chances. Recent developments say that CPI and Congress have allied in Telangana. The BJP on the other hand has allied with the TDP.
It is quite unsure of which way it will sway. The creation of Telangana was a strategic move to increase the probability of winning seats. As of the case of BJP, it isn’t seen distinctly but it wouldn’t be wrong of us to expect its agreement to also prevail for the same reasons. Till then, I guess we shall have to wait for the elections to take place to know for sure.
-Pratha