Volume 2, No. 6-7, June-July 2001

Telangana, with its over five-decade-old militant history of armed struggle dating back to the glorious armed uprising in the late 1940s, is once again bracing itself for a mass upsurge. Even as the class war is intensifying in the guerrilla zones of North and South Telangana under the leadership of the CPI(ML)[People’s War], several other forces cutting across party lines have been coming to the fore with the demand for a separate state for Telangana. This demand for statehood which took the form of a fierce, year-long mass agitation way back in 1969 (and betrayed by the leadership) began to gain popularity once again in the latter half of the 1990s. Meetings and rallies have been increasing since 1996 and have acquired momentum after the creation of the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand last year. In fact, the sentiment for the Telangana state is so strong in the people’s psyche that no ruling class party there dares oppose the demand openly. The BJP even came out with the slogan of "one vote, two states" in the 1998 parliamentary elections, though it went back on its word after assuming power at the centre, obviously due to the pressure exerted by its ally, the TDP. The resignation of the deputy speaker of the AP Legislative Assembly, Chandrasekhar Rao, belonging to the TDP, in April this year, and the founding of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti, came as a shot in the arm for the movement for separate Telangana. Today, with the masses in Telangana becoming more and more restive and assertive, almost all the political parties are faced with a Hobson’s choice: either support the demand for separate Telangana or get isolated from the people of the region. Hence the politicians belonging to the Congress, BJP and even the ruling TDP who hail from Telangana, either openly endorse the demand or remain passive.

The so-called left parties — the revisionist CPI, CPI(M) and parties professing MLM ideology such as Janashakti and New Democracy — oppose the demand for separate Telangana on the plea that the people of Telangana do not constitute a separate nationality, and as they form part of a larger Telugu nation, a demand for a separate state would only lead to the disintegration of the Telugu nation. What should be the attitude of a Marxist party towards such movements which arise on the basis of regional identities due to increasing regional imbalances? Does Marxism deny statehood or autonomy on the basis of region ? And how far is a demand for a statehood justified in the case of Telangana ? Let us deal with the theoretical aspects of these questions first and then the question of demand of statehood for Telangana in concrete.

Uneven economic and political development as we know, is an integral feature and an absolute law of capitalism. Under conditions of imperialism, this feature gets even worse giving rise to extreme disparities in the economics, politics and cultures among the various countries in the world, among the various nationalities within a country, and even among different regions within the same nation state or a province inhabited by the same nationality. Uneven development of nationality and regions becomes a general law under conditions of imperialism. And it is further aggravated in colonies like India.

200 years of British colonial rule led to extreme disparities in the development of different regions and nationalities in India. The entire country was transformed into an agricultural appendage and a raw material supplier to the British industry.

It is a general law that uneven economic, social and political development in any country or territory leads to uneven development of consciousness. In India, a multi-national country, national consciousness developed at different times among the different nationalities, basing on the degree of development of the socio-economic conditions in the national territories. Thus in accordance with the needs of the British colonialists, the coastal regions and some selected pockets in the country witnessed some growth in industry, commerce, transport and communications, education, employment, etc., while other areas remained extremely backward with the feudal mode of production in tact and with little access to education and jobs.

As nationalities were consciously divided up among the different provinces in order to undermine the unity and assertion in accordance with the British policy of ‘divide and rule’ the struggle for the reorganisation of states on a linguistic basis became the major form of self-determination assumed by the various nationalities during British rule.

In 1947 when the British left India, there were 561 Princely States apart from the British provinces. Due to the complex situation where the nationalities were divided among different provinces and national states, we find the national consciousness taking shape differently among the territories comprising of people speaking the same language but who are divided among different provinces and native states.

Thus the legacy of British colonial rule and 50 years of semi-colonial rule have led to extreme disparities among different regions and nationalities in India. That uneven development not only leads to national consciousness and assertion among the nationalities but also to regional consciousness, regional identity and demands for separate states or other forms of autonomy based on the regional aspirations as illustrated by the demands for separate Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand, Vidarbha, Telangana, etc. Some of these do not have a common language in their respective territories, while some form part of a larger nationality speaking the same language. More and more such demands are bound to arise in future given the pattern of development opted by the ruling classes of India.

Why should one support such movements that do not fit into the classical definition of a nation or a nationality? How could one justify the division of a nationality on the basis of regional discrimination and imbalances ? Would this not lead to more and more such demands coming up from each and every region within a state ? Such are the questions raised by some dogmatic Marxists apart from some well-meaning middle class intelligentia.

A nation or a nationality as we know is a stable community of people having a common language, economy, territory and a psychological makeup manifested in a common culture. In West Europe, nations emerged in the fight against feudalism and against the stranglehold of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. It was the development of capitalism that made possible the emergence of nation states in place of feudal empires. The American nation emerged as a result of the struggle by the British, French and other settlers against the domination of the British. Though the Americans were predominantly English, they opted to form a separate sovereign state due to a distinct economy, territory and psychological makeup.

Generally, a nation opts for self-determination including secession from a larger state only when it finds the oppression by the advanced nations or the ruling classes of the multi-national states intolerable. It does not think of separation as long as there is a genuine democratic setup and equality of all nations and languages.

While the common enemies for the entire Indian people are feudalism, imperialism and the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie (CBB), some regions have an additional enemy — the local compradors hailing from the more advanced regions of the same state who, in league with imperialists and the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie, loot the wealth and resources of the backward regions and oppress them politically and culturally, virtually converting these regions into their internal colonies. This inevitably leads to a regional identity and regional consciousness and serves as the objective basis for the demand for a separate state.

Thus if a part of a nationality demands a separate state on account of the step-motherly treatment meted out by the most advanced region, what is the rationale for not extending support to its demand ? Can a communist allow it to be suppressed by a dominant group hailing from the advanced region ? Opposition to any and every form of oppression — be it national, regional, religious, gender, ethnic — is the quality of a communist. Or else, he/she is not even worthy of calling oneself a democrat let alone being a communist. It is a democratic right for the local inhabitants of a region to decide the form of self-government depending upon the economic and social conditions, the psychological make-up of the population and other factors. Hence the same reasons that apply in supporting the struggles of the oppressed nationalities also hold good in the case of support to such struggles based on regional identities.

In fact, this tendency of growth of regional assertion are bound to aggravate further in the present day context of globalisation wherein international capital, being highly mobile and in search of quick profits, flows into those regions characterised by a relatively well-developed infrastructure. This pushes the backward regions into further backwardness and aggravates the regional imbalances within a nation state/multi-nation state. The backward regions continue to serve as hinterlands to the more advanced regions. Moreover, with the ruling classes doing away with even the minimum social welfare schemes and development activities under the neo-liberal dispensation, the people of the backward regions, particularly the oppressed sections, will be the hardest hit. This will lead to increased demands for regional autonomy and statehood. Marxist-Leninists should have political clarity on the question of rendering support to the democratic aspirations of the people in these regions who are exploited not only by imperialism and the CBB but also by capital from the advanced regions inhabited by the same nationality.

The argument that people speaking a common language or who broadly form a single nationality should remain in a single state is untenable both from the practical as well as from theoretical point of view. The proponents of such a view are bound to logically conclude that all Hindi-speaking areas be brought into a single state or may even propose for greater Bengal by including East and West Bengal as well as the Bengali speaking areas of Assam.

Historically too we find the Germans of Austria emerging into a sovereign nation state and nor opting to be part of Germany. Incidentally Hitler raked up German national chauvinism with the slogan of unifying all the German speaking areas. The people of Kosovo who are ethnically Albanian have remained part of Yugoslavia for long. Now they have launched a struggle to form their own sovereign state but not to become part of Albania. There is, of course, the history of the English speaking people spreading out into various parts of the world and forming into separate nations such as USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

The formation of separate states by dividing a nationality should be opposed if it is a ploy by the ruling classes to divide people as was the case in India under the British rule. But if the people themselves opt to form a separate state, then there is no reason for not extending support.

In fact, as long as the people of backward regions feel that they are oppressed by the elites from the advanced regions of the same nation, and that they are being discriminated against in all spheres vis-a-vis the advanced region, one cannot think of real integration of the nation. Formation of separate states when the people so desire, will not disrupt the unity but on the other hand will foster genuine unity of the people of the two regions on a firmer basis based on equality.

In fact the forcible holding together of the people of different regions inspite of their unwillingness on the mere plea of a common language or nationality, will only mean playing into the hands of the ruling classes who want the people of the two regions at logger heads and who instigate them against one another in order to keep them eternally divided. On the contrary, separation of the regions into different states will actually reduce the ground for hostility between the people of the two regions and will lay the firm basis for a united struggle against the common enemies after they are separated. As long as they remain together with mutual mistrust and suspicion, and with one region being exploited and looked down upon by the other, the people of the backward region cannot identify the bigger enemies — feudalism, imperialism and bureaucratic capitalism — and can easily be diverted to target the people of the advanced regions whenever the ruling classes face a critical situation. A division of such regions into separate states will only contribute to the reduction of tensions and mistrust between the people and unite them against the common enemies inspite of being in two separate states.

Seen historically, the Telangana region has not really been integrated with the rest of the Telugu speaking population of AP. Similar is the case with the Rayalaseema region and North Andhra comprising Vishakhapatnam, Vijayanagaram and Srikakulam districts. The economies of these regions have remained extremely backward all along and have had their own distinct territories and cultures.

Telangana was part of the Hyderabad State until its merger with the rest of the Telugu speaking areas in November 1956. There was no unified economy for Telangana and Andhra regions until the formation of the state of AP. The state of Hyderabad comprised of three distinct nationalities — the Telugu-speaking Telangana, the Kannada-speaking region of Raichur, Gulbarga, Bidar, and the Marathi speaking Marathwada region of Aurangabad, Usmanabad, Latur, Nanded etc. Among the British provinces, the Madras Presidency had two major nationalities of Tamil and Telugu along with Kannada-speaking Bellary district and Kodagu-speaking district of Coorg. The Bombay Presidency consisted of large chunks of Marathi, Gujarati and Kannada-speaking nationalities. The demand for the unification of Telugu, Kannada, Gujarati and Marathi-speaking nationalities on their respective linguistic basis gathered momentum after the transfer of power eventually leading to the formation of the separate states of AP, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat by the mid-1950s.

Coming to the formation of the Andhra state, the vested interests in Rayalaseema although they initially resisted the merger with the more developed coastal region, finally agreed to the merger through the Sri Bagh Pact of 1937 on condition that irrigation and educational development of the region should be safeguarded. The Telugu speaking people of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema thus first united themselves against the Tamil domination in the Madras Presidency and constituted into the Andhra state in 1953. The people of Telangana, steeped in feudal backwardness under the Nizam for long, feared their region would be swamped by the more advanced settlers from the coastal region if they merged into a single state.

But the landlords and wealthy class from coastal Andhra set their greedy eyes on the resource-rich Telangana region. They needed the sources of raw materials and markets for the investment of their surplus capital generated from agriculture on irrigated lands. Besides, the Andhra state had no big city such as Hyderabad to serve as a capital. Hence the Andhra bourgeoisie lobbied and entered into agreements with the vested landed interests in Telangana (who feared the threat of the communists in a separate state) and formed the state of AP in 1956.

It is worth while to note the observations made by the States Reorganisation Commission in its report submitted in 1955 after studying the problems of the two regions. It pointed out the danger of a future domination by the Andhra region in the case of merger:

"The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they enjoin Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partners will derive all the advantages immediately, while Telangana, itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra." It also noted that "while opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallise itself."

It recommended that it would be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if the latter constituted itself into a separate state of Hyderabad with provisions for its unification with Andhra after the general election in 1961 if by two-thirds majority the legislature of Hyderabad State expresses itself in favour of such unification. The short intervening period was felt necessary for "allaying apprehensions and achieving the consensus of opinion necessary for a real union between two states."

It concluded that "Andhra, Telangana have common interest" and hoped that "these interests will tend to bring the people closer to each other." It however warned that ".... if conditions congenial to the unification of the two areas do not materialise and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallises itself against the unification of the two states, Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit." Inspite of these warnings, the Congress leadership in Telangana conceded to the central pressures and signed the Gentlemen’s Agreement in 1956.

Some of the salient features of this agreement were : 1) a regional standing committee of the state assembly will be constituted for the Telangana region and that legislation relating to specified matters will be referred to this committee. 2) The advice rended by the regional committee will normally been accepted by the government at the state legislature. 3) This regional committee will deal with matters such as : development and economic planning, local self-government, public health and sanitation, primary and secondary education, regulation of admission to the educational institutions in the Telangana region, prohibition, sale of agricultural lands, cottage and small scale industries, agriculture, cooperative societies etc. This arrangement will be reviewed after ten years. 4) Domicile Rules under the existing Hyderabad Mulky Rules (i.e., 12 years stay in Telangana areas) to continue for recruitment into jobs.5) Distribution of expenditures between Telangana and Andhra regions should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of income from Telangana should be reserved for expenditure on the development of the Telangana area. 6) Existing educational facilities including technical education in Telangana should be secured to the students of Telangana and further improved. 7) The cabinet will consist of members in proportion of 60:40 for Andhra and Telangana respectively. Out of the 40% of Telangana ministers, one will be a Muslim from Telangana. If the chief minister is from one region, the other region should be given the post of deputy chief minister.

In this agreement, there were no statutory provisions to bring the region out of its backwardness or to ensure the provision of adequate river waters. But even the provisions agreed upon remained merely on paper. The sale of agriculture lands to the Andhra settlers went on increasing and vast stretches of fertile lands in the districts of Khammam, Nizamabad and Adilabad districts were snatched from the backward peasantry of the region for a pittance. The jobs reserved for locals were filled up by migrants from the Andhra region. The seats in the colleges went to Andhra settlers based on bogus certificates. The funds meant for the development of Telangana were diverted to coastal Andhra in a massive way. River waters were utilised for irrigating lands in the coastal region while Telangana continued to reel in feudal backwardness. The wealth and resources of the region were systematically plundered for the benefit of not only the imperialists and the CBB but also the Andhra bourgeoisie.

It was against such a background that the Non-Gazetted Officers, students, youth and intelligentia of Telangana came out into the streets in 1969 and waged a militant agitation for a separate state of Telangana. Over 370 people laid down their lives in this movement. Having realised that the movement was going out control, the vested interests in both regions entered into an agreement and the leadership of the Telangana movement betrayed the people’s interest and compromised with the Andhra regional compradors. Yet the sentiment for separate Telangana was so strong in the minds of the people of the region that in the mid-term elections in 1971, the Telangana Praja Samithi, comprising of the disgruntled feudal elements in the Congress, won 10 out of the 14 parliamentary seats in Telangana.

In 1973, in the wake of the Supreme Court Ruling that Mulky Rules were constitutional, the ruling elites in coastal Andhra spearheaded a movement for a separate Andhra state. A 6-point formula was placed by the central government to appease the vested interests of Andhra. This formula snatched away even the existing rights of the people of Telangana by way of : 1) abolishing the Mulky Rules, thereby depriving even the meagre job opportunities available to the local residents of Telangana 2) dissolving the regional standing committee 3) abandoning the practice of showing the expenditure and income from Telangana separately 4) Dividing the two regions into seven zones and making Hyderabad into a special zone 5) reducing the period of domicile from 15 to 4 years for qualifying as a local candidate.

The implementation of the 6-Point formula led to the further widening of the inequalities between the people of the two regions and increased the regional imbalances. Whether in the matter of irrigation, power generation and distribution, education or employment, the rights of the people of Telangana have been snatched away by the Andhra bourgeoisie in a systematic manner. The share of Telangana in jobs fell from 42% to 10% after dispensing with the Mulky Rules. Today Telangana’s share is 2 lakhs out of 14 lakh government jobs and these too at lower levels. The ratio of 2:1 agreed upon at the time of integration in 1956 was shelved. Of the 96,000-odd primary school teachers in Telangana, only 16,000 belong to the region. And most of the bureaucracy and judiciary is filled with personnel from coastal Andhra. Literacy rates in Telangana is 37% while the state’s average stands at 44%.

Facts regarding irrigation and industrialisation in the region are even more revealing.

Telangana region constitutes 41.75% of the total land area in AP and its share of state’s population is 39.22% as per the 1991 Census. Irrigated land out of the total sown land in Telangana is a mere 22.84%. In fact, land under cultivation in Telangana actually decreased from 46,57,188 hectares in 1955-56 to 38,93,617 hectares in 1992-93. During the same period the land under cultivation in the coastal Andhra region increased by about 10% from 35,25,924 hectares to 38,67,306 hectares.

The sole reason for the reduction of the cultivable land in Telangana is sheer neglect of the region and discriminatory policies adopted by the successive governments both in the state and at the centre. None of the irrigation projects has been completed although they were planned some 30-40 years ago. The Sriramsagar project started in 1963 is yet to be completed. The much-trumpeted Srisailam left bank canal is still pending. Jurala, Itchampalli, Bhima and other projects are languishing. Thus the 12 projects sanctioned for Telangana to provide irrigation for 10 lakh hectares have seen little progress. In sharp contrast, the Telugu Ganga project is already supplying water to far off Chennai just within 12 years of its announcement with prompt allotment of funds every year. The great irony is that the two great river systems flowing through the south — the Godavari and Krishna — pass mainly through Telangana. 79% of the Godavari catchment area falls in North Telangana while 69% of the Krishna catchment area falls in the South Telangana region. Yet the waters are hardly utilised for irrigating land in Telangana which is transforming into a desert over the years. Every year severe drought stalks one part or the other or the entire region. While neglecting the ongoing irrigation projects which benefits the region, projects like Pulichintala and Polavaram are being pushed through which serve the Andhra region while submerging the lands of the local people in Telangana. The greatest paradox is that two districts of South Telangana — Mahaboobnagar and Nalgonda — which are located entirely in the Krishna river basin, form the core area of drought due to the discriminatory and callous attitude of the ruling classes. Deep tube wells have become the main source of irrigation for those who can afford it. But even these are drying up due to the excessive pressure on ground water. Besides, tank irrigation is reduced by half. In 1956-57, around 4.47 lakh hectares were under tank irrigation in Telangana which has now come down to 2.26 lakh hectares. The excessive dependence on pumpsets has made the Telangana peasant dependent on erratic power supply often leading to crop failures and consequently suicides of the peasants on a mass scale.

Today even drinking water is in short supply in many areas of Telangana, not to speak of water for irrigation. Fluorinated water is the only source of drinking water for the people in parts of Nalgonda, Warangal and Khammam. Lakhs of cattle are sold off every year to slaughter houses due to the recurrent famine. Diversion of the river waters, depletion of ground water sources, destruction of tanks, excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides particularly by the settlers from coastal Andhra who obtain the lands of the locals cheaply, are all leading to the desertification of some parts of Telangana. Every year, at least a million labourers migrate from the district of Mahaboobnagar alone to regions as far as the Narmada valley and other parts of north India in search of labour.

On the industrial front, the picture is equally pathetic. Industrialisation after 1947 is mainly confined to Hyderabad city and Ranga Reddy districts. But even these industries are facing the prospects of closure due to the policies of liberalisation and privatisation. PSUs like Allwyn Auto and Republican Forge have already closed down; Anthargaon and Sirpur Sirsilk Mills face closure along with the Nizam Sugar Factory, FCI in Godavarikhani and Miryalaguda sugar mill. The major chunk of the existing medium and large industrial units in Telangana are owned by the wealthy from coastal Andhra or by outsiders. Of the 10,000 medium and large industrial units in Telangana only 1250 units are owned by the locals. Capitalists from the coastal region own 6,000 units and the rest belong to those from outside the state. What is worse, only 23% of the work force in these units belongs to Telangana.

Thus the Telangana region is a victim of quadruple oppression. It not only suffers from the oppression and ruthless plunder by the feudal-imperialist-CBB combine like any other region in India, but also confronts another ferocious predator and oppressor — the landlords and the regional comprador bourgeoisie from the coastal region of AP. This Andhra bourgeoisie is now well-integrated with CBB and imperialist capital and has emerged as a most loyal agent of the imperialists in AP under the TDP government of Chandrababu Naidu. The fight against the comprador bourgeoisie in Andhra is also a fight against imperialism and the CBB.

For a communist, development means the development of people and not a handful of the elite. When they advance the slogan of a separate state, it means a state that can ensure people’s genuine development. And genuine development is possible only by fighting feudalism, imperialism and the CBB along with the compradors from the advanced region. It means shaking off feudal and imperialist shackles, distribution of land to the landless, improvement in the standards of living of the vast majority, provision of drinking water and water for irrigation, supply of cheap agricultural inputs and remunerative prices for the agricultural outputs of the peasantry. Development means blocking the inflow of imperialist and comprador capital into the region and stopping the outflow of the wealth and resources from the region. It means a more equitable distribution of wealth to the most oppressed sections of society — the rural and urban poor, the dalit masses, the women and the adivasis. It means ensuring jobs to the unemployed youth and security of livelihood to the people. It means protection of the democratic rights of the people, an end to the unending police atrocities and fake encounters, withdrawal of the police camps and scrapping the Disturbed Areas Act. It means de-centralisation or devolution of power in the real sense. Without these aims, there is no meaning in talking of development of the region and a separate state will have no meaning to the people.

Regional imbalances should be done away with in order to mitigate the inequalities between the various sections. The slogan of separate Telangana should thus simultaneously be a slogan of democratic Telangana — a Telangana where the oppressed castes and classes enjoy the rightful share in the economy and polity, where they can enjoy dignity and self-respect. The feudal and comprador of the Telangana region are no less rapacious than those from the coastal region and serve the interests of the imperialists equally well. Hence in fighting for a separate Telangana, such reactionary forces belonging to the BJP, Congress and TDP and other parliamentary parties should be exposed thoroughly. They should be asked to resign from their respective parties and to openly declare their acceptance of the charter of people’s demands if they are really for a separate democratic Telangana.

History has shown that exploiters always use the people’s sentiments to advance popular slogans only to betray the people’s interests once they come to power. In the fight for a separate democratic Telangana, people should form their own committees at the grass-roots level to implement the programme of democratic Telangana. Given the growing popularity of the demand for separate Telangana, the increasing instability at the Centre, the intense contradictions among the various political forces, the electoral compulsions of the political parties, it may not be surprising if the demand for a separate state is conceded after the struggle develops to a certain level as seen from the granting of the statehood to Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh. The fear of the PW taking advantage of the movement for a separate Telangana also looms like a spectre before the ruling classes. One cannot of course rule out the possibility of a blood bath before granting statehood for Telangana. But real struggle should centre around the programme for a democratic Telangana. It is through this programme that the feudal, comprador collaborators and anti-people, corrupt sections will be thoroughly exposed and the mobilisation of the broad masses can be achieved for the realisation of their democratic aspirations.

<Top>