The essence of democracy lies in its representative character. In the context of the caste-ridden, uprepresentative character of the Indian society, unless the majority sections of population find representation at all levels of power structures India cannot be termed as a democratic state. It was with this aim that, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued for separate electorates for Dalits and for the formation of smaller states. Seen from the Amdbedkarite perspective, the formation of separate Telangana state would weaken the monopoly of the dominant castes and pave the way for the majority sections of the population to take over the state power that was long denied to them.
The various movements in the Telangana region from the Nizam period to present day have not addressed majority sections of the population in terms of acquiring social, economic and political power. Although the Telangana armed struggle liberated marginalised sections from the shackles of forced labour (vetti), it failed to bring equitable order by distributing land to the tiller. On the other hand, it largely benefited the dominant castes in terms of the consolidation of land holdings. The communist slogan of ‘Vishalandra’ (not based on any fundamental Marxist tenets) instead of bringing ‘praja rajyam’ transformed Telangana region into an “internal colony” (to use Leninist phraseology) to serve the interests of coastal Andhra dominant castes.
The 1969 movement for ‘separate Telangana’, at best can be characterised as a game of power struggle by the dominant castes of the region at the cost of region’s and people’s interests. Various struggles by Naxalite groups in the 1970s and1980s broke the back of feudalism in rural Telangana, but even they could not break out of the prison of caste dynamics. The Naxalite movement in Telangana forced the migration of Patels and Doras to urban centres which in turn only benefited these classes to find new fortunes. On the other hand, the majority marginalised sections of the population who were attracted to the Naxalite movements were victimized, killed in police encounters, or by naxalites themselves in the name of informers.
Since 1996, once again the Telangana issue has become point of debate, started by academicians and other intellectuals, front organizations of some leftist groups and cultural organizations. The issue has been debated and discussed in numerous seminars, conferences, writing in the mass media, and through cultural groups. The Patels and Doras who lost power in the wake of Kamma-led Telugu Desam Party (TDP) emergence on the political scene once monopolized by the Congress, once again took over the issue of Telangana by forming a separate political outfit called Telangana Rastra Samithi (TRS).
The TRS, given its social nature, is only manoeuvring the Telangana issues to protect the interests of Doras and Patels thorough electoral politics and ‘lobbying’. The TRS reduced the Telangana issue into a mere “sentimental issue.” It also used delaying tactics, promising to bring about Telangana State, from one election to another. TRS was averse to involving people in terms of mass movement. These are testimony to its self promoting and survival politics. In other words, TRS has been practically engaged in the dilution of the rousing spirit of Telangana people. Similarly, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which passed a resolution for the formation of smaller states in line with its Hindutva designs at Kakinada in 1998 completely ignored the issue of Telangana when it came in to power at the Centre in 1999, has once again taken up the separate Telangana issue electoral gains.
The movement for the formation of separate Telangana state is one of the oldest among separate statehood movements in India. Though the smaller states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal were formed in other parts of India, why has not the dream of a Telangana State not yet realised? Clearly, it is because of the game of power politics and compromise tactics that are adopted time to time by the dominant castes of Telangana and Andhra to protect their own interests? So the question to be asked in the context of Telangana statehood, is how should the majority sections of the population proceed? Who requires Telangana State and why? Is it for the dominant castes that are have been enjoying political and economic power for centuries? Or is it for the majority sections of the population, who have been deprived of their rightful share of power? We need to critically probe the nature of Telangana movement and the interests of its leadership in historical and people-centric perspectives. This critical analysis by people’s organic intellectuals is necessary to put an end to the politics of deceit and betrayal of the aspirations of the people and explore and formulate strategies to pave the way for the formation of a People’s Telangana.
Sub themes of seminar:
1) Ambedkarite perspectives on smaller states in India.
2) Hegemonic caste politics in Andhra Pradesh.
3) Dominant castes and Telangana movement.
4) People’s access to resources and development.
5) Media and cultural constructions.
6) Articulations on cultural Telangana: caste, tribe, gender and minorities.
The various movements in the Telangana region from the Nizam period to present day have not addressed majority sections of the population in terms of acquiring social, economic and political power. Although the Telangana armed struggle liberated marginalised sections from the shackles of forced labour (vetti), it failed to bring equitable order by distributing land to the tiller. On the other hand, it largely benefited the dominant castes in terms of the consolidation of land holdings. The communist slogan of ‘Vishalandra’ (not based on any fundamental Marxist tenets) instead of bringing ‘praja rajyam’ transformed Telangana region into an “internal colony” (to use Leninist phraseology) to serve the interests of coastal Andhra dominant castes.
The 1969 movement for ‘separate Telangana’, at best can be characterised as a game of power struggle by the dominant castes of the region at the cost of region’s and people’s interests. Various struggles by Naxalite groups in the 1970s and1980s broke the back of feudalism in rural Telangana, but even they could not break out of the prison of caste dynamics. The Naxalite movement in Telangana forced the migration of Patels and Doras to urban centres which in turn only benefited these classes to find new fortunes. On the other hand, the majority marginalised sections of the population who were attracted to the Naxalite movements were victimized, killed in police encounters, or by naxalites themselves in the name of informers.
Since 1996, once again the Telangana issue has become point of debate, started by academicians and other intellectuals, front organizations of some leftist groups and cultural organizations. The issue has been debated and discussed in numerous seminars, conferences, writing in the mass media, and through cultural groups. The Patels and Doras who lost power in the wake of Kamma-led Telugu Desam Party (TDP) emergence on the political scene once monopolized by the Congress, once again took over the issue of Telangana by forming a separate political outfit called Telangana Rastra Samithi (TRS).
The TRS, given its social nature, is only manoeuvring the Telangana issues to protect the interests of Doras and Patels thorough electoral politics and ‘lobbying’. The TRS reduced the Telangana issue into a mere “sentimental issue.” It also used delaying tactics, promising to bring about Telangana State, from one election to another. TRS was averse to involving people in terms of mass movement. These are testimony to its self promoting and survival politics. In other words, TRS has been practically engaged in the dilution of the rousing spirit of Telangana people. Similarly, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which passed a resolution for the formation of smaller states in line with its Hindutva designs at Kakinada in 1998 completely ignored the issue of Telangana when it came in to power at the Centre in 1999, has once again taken up the separate Telangana issue electoral gains.
The movement for the formation of separate Telangana state is one of the oldest among separate statehood movements in India. Though the smaller states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal were formed in other parts of India, why has not the dream of a Telangana State not yet realised? Clearly, it is because of the game of power politics and compromise tactics that are adopted time to time by the dominant castes of Telangana and Andhra to protect their own interests? So the question to be asked in the context of Telangana statehood, is how should the majority sections of the population proceed? Who requires Telangana State and why? Is it for the dominant castes that are have been enjoying political and economic power for centuries? Or is it for the majority sections of the population, who have been deprived of their rightful share of power? We need to critically probe the nature of Telangana movement and the interests of its leadership in historical and people-centric perspectives. This critical analysis by people’s organic intellectuals is necessary to put an end to the politics of deceit and betrayal of the aspirations of the people and explore and formulate strategies to pave the way for the formation of a People’s Telangana.
Sub themes of seminar:
1) Ambedkarite perspectives on smaller states in India.
2) Hegemonic caste politics in Andhra Pradesh.
3) Dominant castes and Telangana movement.
4) People’s access to resources and development.
5) Media and cultural constructions.
6) Articulations on cultural Telangana: caste, tribe, gender and minorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment