Politics in a Problematic Terrain: A Closer Look At Telangana Rastra Samiti (TRS) in Telangana Region of Andhraprdesh

H.Vageeshan1

To me in these circumstances, the word great (vishaala) seems to have imperialist expansionist connotations Jawahala Nehru (Talking to the scribes on the occasion of inauguration of Andhra State on 1-10-1952 reported on local daily 3-5-1952.

Delving in to the history to understand the present and analyzing the past form the experience of the present, at time becomes imperative to analyze the contemporary complexities and tragedies. Efforts to build coherence between the people on the basis of one or other cultural commonality(s), and create a workable common identity is one such contemporary complex endeavor that has gone unimaginably wrong. I argue that this effort was to begin with, taken up only on emotive and concealed political and strategic considerations, keeping away. It was never based on democratic principles and unsurprisingly it has led to dissention. The basis of this project of constructing a shared identity was a modern European construct : linguistic nationalism. . After the demise of old controls of, empires, and the Papacy the age of enlightenment and reason was ushered in Europe. These new developments inevitably demanded redefinition of the contours of commonality which transcend Papacy and empire. This search led to the idea of nationalism in modern Europe which realigned most of Europe by late 19 th century AD. This new idea has various manifestations like ethno nationalism, linguistic nationalism and so on. It will not be out of place to say that this construction of commonality is a quite complex effort which involves interplay of cultural raw material, communication, art of inclusive and exclusive politics, governance and management of pluralities. European colonialism took the idea of nationalism to its colonies many a time unintentionally and at times with intentions. British India is no exception to this rule. The Idea of linguistic and ethno nationalism in Indian subcontinent is 18th and 19th centuries which fructified in early 20 th century, seriously mediated by the colonial rule and the enlightenment idea it brought with it during yielding nourishing

1
H. Vageesshan is an assistant professor r of political science in National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University, Hyderabad . Contact : vajimukha@gmail.com

crop at times, but also bitter noxious in other cases. Post colonial India has faced the problem of national building and restructures provinces. For this purpose the readily available tool was linguistic nationalism. In India It seems to worked well in some cases, but did not work well in others. People in one such living constitution to take in to cognizance of the in and around it. Back ground When India got independence Telugu people were living in two different political territories. one in the then United Madras Province (UMP) for almost two centuries and the other in the Nizams Dominion (Also Known as Hyderabad state) which was multi lingual state comprising Telugu, Kannada and Marathi speaking zones respectively . The Telugu lands in the Nizams dominion were known as Telangana. This Dominion which was a faithful ally to the British since 1857. In 1952 October Telugus of UMP got separate state as a result of prolonged agitation and deft political maneuvering. The story was taking a different turn for Telugus in the Nizams dominions as this state was annexed by the Indian Union on September 17, 1948 by Indian Union by military operation . Reorganizing the newly acceded multi lingual territory was a challenge for Indian Union . From 1948 to 1956 Nizams Dominion was under the rule of Army, civilian administration and under elected government respectively. area of unsuccessful experiment in India ,time and again substantiate their demand ,urge and appeal to a ground realities and remodel territorial realignment. This is in short is the story of terrine of Telangana and politics

Diversity of Telugus

which was mediated by different ruling systems namely the

colonial rule and a native princely rule was an established fact by 1950s. The first State Reorganization Commission (SRC) expressed its genuine doubts about the merger of two diverse Telugu territories. The report took cognizance of points raised by the Mulki Movement between 1954-56 against the merger of Telangana with Andhra state. The report of the commission weighed the pros and cons of formation o f a unified Telugu linguistic state advised to go slow on the issue till the second assembly elections which were to 1960s. But the Indian Union by 1956 mediated an agreement between Telugus of two regions and formed Andhra Pradesh by Novemeber,1, 1956. The roots for the current turmoil lay deep ignoring the advice of the SRC.

Blow out and fire fight Subsequently there was a movement from 1969-71 for separate telangana ( predominantly a students and employees movement) . There had been a legal battle in courts too to up keep regional safe guards ( Mulki protections) in the A.P.High Court and Supreme court .In October 1972 Supreme court upheld rules which triggered Mulki a movement named Jai Andhra. In essence the jai Andhra

movement is opposition to the Mulki rules. It in essence stated after the 1972 judgment that there is no point in living in a unified state if certain nativity rules are placed against them. a Union Government stepped in again and came out with a six point formula, divided AP in to six zones for the purpose of public employment up to certain cadre and put Andhraprdesh together. It seems to careful observers that union government missed an opportunity look in to the depth of the dissention between two regions. Re-emergence It was 1985 ones again Telangana grievance stated re-emerging being aired now by the state government employees of Telangana region. The demand implementation of for zone principles and repatriate the non locals. Later in1992 MP

form the region gave a representation to the then Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao giving statistics of deprivation in the area of irrigation, education and allocation of financial resources. Organization , By 1992 student groups named as Telagana Students emerged in Osmania University. Some Telangana Liberation Front

dissenting Intellectuals working with the radical took interest in telagana and in early 1990s raised issue of telagana from the perspective nationalities. Thus various groups namely employees, the students, parliamentarians, non parliamentary left intellectuals started expressing Telagana deprivation in less than two decades after the Union Governemtn mediated solution of 1973. The re-emergence of Telagana deprivation and aspiration for separation is coterminous with emergence and strengthening Telugu Desham Party ascendency to power in mid 1980s. Assertion of identity Telangana had been a hot bed of left leaning political action since 1948.Post Aandhrapradesh strong Marxist Leninist movement took roots in Telangana in mid 1970. By late 1980s there was a churning in Marxist Leninist groups on the question of caste. In a nut shell an argument to have a serious look at caste question and a non congress state level party and its

integrate it in to transformatory revolutionary praxis was highlighted by a few non upper caste intellectuals in the party circles. Tsunduru and Neerukonda dalit carnages were immediate reasons for this rethinking. Gender and caste were brought forth as distinct categories and discrimination on these two grounds on an everyday basis became a point of serious discourse within the ML camp.Regional disparity also added to the deprived identities soon. Initially the dominant ML intellectuals saw these arguments as divisive in nature. But the dissenters persisted . In the form of these dissenters re-emerging Telangana movement of early 1990s got very strong identity political assertion. In a way the murmurs in few quarters now started becoming a bit louder. The organizing, disseminating capacity of these dissenting rebels contributed to the pitch of the Telangana voice. In 1997 Maroju Veeranna, a dissenting ML activist of Janshakti party broke from the ranks with a thesis of taking up caste annihilation struggles along with class struggles. He was instrumental in formation Telagan Mahasabha in Suryapet which gave a call for the formation with a strong social justice agenda .This was quickly with formation of Telangana Jana sabha followed by demanding the then peoples war group

Democratic separate telangana. In this manner by late 1990s non parliamentary left took a lead to voice telangan openly. Ripples of this embolden ment can be seen formation of a short livedJai Telangana home minster P.Indrareddy. parliamentary political party by a former At national level BJP was in favour for small states but

never keenly pused rsued telagana cause during this period. It had its own coalition compulsion with the then ruling telugu desham party. Congress party which was out of power during the period took the issue to the party high command. Response of the State Government State government response to the raising Telagana voices ranged from calculatedly ignoring them to forcefully suppressing them. The state government willfully neglected to see the facts and figures put forth by the protagonists of telangana. In state legislative assembly a ruling was given by the then speaker on behalf of the government not to use the word Telangana on the floor of the house as that word has strong disintegrating Telugu Pride over tone. Officially Telangana word is prohibited as Un drummed the parliamentary ( perhaps also as ani Telugu national) . A party which

(telugu atma gouravam) against delhis over lordship in 1982 was

terribly intolerant to listen the utterance of word Telangana officially. The non leftist voices were muzzled ruthlessly organizers were arrested; balladeers were shot at and were hacked to death. Partly it was also true these organizations failed to form a

parliamentary party to express the Telangana voice. They focused more on dissemination and struggle mode activity than on Party building activity. Voice in the assembly were ignored and heckled. Non parliamentary voices were hounded by strong arm tactics .This was the states response and the plight of reemerged phoenix named telangana. party. Emergence of Telangana Rastra Samithi (TRS) The movement took in to fold various sections but it was not successful in forming a political party. Partly this failure can be ascribed to the skepticism of the ultra left about parliamentary politics and partly to the bitter experience of back tracking of party espoused the cause. But it was becoming tough for the movement to exist without a political party. Telangana intellectuals rallied around a seasoned politician deputy K.Chandrshekar Rao (KCR) party. by early 2000. He was then an MLA and also This response can be analysed from the cast class nature of the ruling

speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. He was the main pro Telangana voice in the Congress leaders who were sympathetic to the cause of Telangana failed to launch a separate Telangana outfit. Thus, a movement which emerged in mid 1990s began to search for a leader who could shape a parliamentary party. KCR was convinced to launch a party. One has to keep in mind that the voice for Telangana of mid-1990s had a serious socio economic transformation agenda . In April 2001 Telangana Rashtra Samiti was launched.. wing parties Cadres from both left and right

thronged the party. Since the launching of the party TRS focused on

electoral politics. Its aim was to garner as many seats as possible both legislative and parliamentary constituencies and then become crucial in formation of governments both at the state and union level. KCR professed that in the era of coalitions each parliament seat becomes important hence the aim of TRS is to win more seats. He quickly steered himself from the politics of the movement and meandered in to electoral politics. In 2004, TRS had an alliance with congress and was successfully included governments agenda, but failed to formation of Telangana as priority issue in UPA-I

realize it in real terms. In 2009 TRS was with anti congress front and dwindled in strength. The party failed to strengthen itself at grassroots. However considering the odds, it is no mean achievement that the party has kept the issue alive at national and state-level for the past twelve years. Movement and Party at cross roads

The failures of TRS are due to was seen as a mistake

many extraneous factors. The key problem is over

reliance on the politics of lobbying at the center. Its entry in to the union government when analyzed from current state of affairs. It ignored strengthening of party apparatus deep down. There is serious disjunction between the aspirations and ideals of the movement and the action of the party. Coordination is missing between a large umbrella of pro Telangana activists with socio economic transformation agenda and TRS with its the political agenda. Added to this problem party is fast turning family fiefdom. It is time for the party and the movement to come tighter and re-engineer strategies and tactics to achieve the goal of Telangana state which is a genuine democratic demand.