THE reorganization of states along linguistic lines represents a great innovation in our constitutional history. Within a couple of decades after independence, people speaking major languages of the country, with the exception of Hindi, were grouped together into separate states. Today taking a long-term view of our society and history, it is clear that democratic India is going through a process similar to what Europe went through over two centuries in the formation of linguistic nation states. The only difference is that while the linguistic states in Europe emerged as independent nation states, in India they are part of one sovereign nation. As a result, the process is far more complex and tension ridden in our country.

Language evolves over long periods. It is the expression of shared life, thought structures and value patterns. The feeling of affinity with people speaking the same language, actually goes beyond mere sentiment. India is the home for some of the large, old and developed languages of the world. For example, as a native language, more people speak Telugu than French or Italian. Most Indian languages are rich in traditional literature and have the capacity to express ideas with facility and elegance. Many people in India derive their primary identity by the language they speak – such as Tamil, Gujarati, Bengali, among others. Of all the kinds of regionalism and regional identities in India, linguistic regionalism (nationalism?) appears most solid and enduring.

The idea that states in India should be organized along linguistic lines is almost a century old. The Andhras were the first to launch a movement for a separate state for the Telugu-speaking people in the first decade of the 20th century. The Congress party conceded the demand in principle by forming a separate provincial committee within the party for Andhra in 1917. Later in 1920, the ‘one language one state principle’ was extended to other regions as well. However, after independence, the national leaders opposed and resisted the demand for linguistic states, apprehensive that such a measure might let loose forces of national disintegration and disrupt economic reconstruction. However, they had to finally relent and concede the state of Andhra in 1953.

 

More importantly, the formation of Andhra led to the setting up of a commission to enquire into the question of linguistic states, known as the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), and the subsequent redrawing of the political map of India. In 1956, the Telugu-speaking districts of the Hyderabad state (known as Telangana region) were merged with the already existing Andhra state to create Andhra Pradesh (AP) as one single state for the Telugu-speaking people.

Yet, paradoxically, the idea of a unified linguistic state was first put to severe test in the state of Andhra Pradesh itself. While several other linguistic states in India have remained stable, the question whether the Telugus should remain in one or two or more states has come up repeatedly after the formation of the state. During the years 1969-73, the state witnessed two massive and violent agitations with a demand for separate statehood, first in Telangana and then in the Andhra region.

The demand for a separate Telangana has once again resurfaced and remains an important issue in state politics today. National political parties such as the Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Communist Party of India (CPI) favour the creation of a separate Telangana state. Even the Telugu Desam Party, which was launched to uphold the unity of the state, now supports the creation of a separate Telangana. Of course, there are parties, such as the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) and Nava Telangana Praja Party (NTPP), with the single agenda of achieving a separate Telangana state.

Though the people of Andhra and Telangana regions speak the same language, it has two names now – Andhramu and Telugu (or Tenugu). Some scholars claim that they were once different languages – Andhra evolved as a Sanskrit-Prakrit derivative, while Telugu is a Dravidian language. Today’s Telugu could be a product of intermingling in the distant past between those who spoke Andhramu (who were supposed to have migrated from the northern parts) and those who spoke Telugu. However, these two words are now used for the same language in an interchangeable and equivalent manner.

 

The word Andhra is used for the present coastal districts and Telangana for other districts not because they speak different languages. Initially, the word Andhra was used to merely distinguish the Telugu-speaking people from the Tamil-speaking people in the Madras presidency, and Telangana was used to distinguish Telugu-speaking people from other linguistic regions in the Hyderabad state. Probably, the word Telangana, in use since the Vijayanagara period, is derived from the word trilinga or trilinga desa (the land of three lingas), which according to legend lies between the three holy shrines dedicated to Lord Shiva, each of which is now in Rayalaseema, Telangana and Andhra regions. The Andhra Maha Sabha was the association that worked for the promotion of Telugu language in the Nizam state and later became the vehicle of communist struggle against the Nizam.

 

Historically, prior to British rule, different parts of Telugu speaking areas were under the same kingdom at some times and under different kings at others, as was the case with any other linguistic group in the medieval period. However, those divisions had nothing to do with the present regional identities. Migration between the regions must have taken place between different regions of the present AP freely and without any barriers, as evident from the common language, social groups, common rituals and festivals. Both regions gave rise to a rich Telugu literature. Yet, the demand for a separate Telangana persists.

The Telangana protagonists argue that uneven development in the two regions of the state, neglect of the interests of the Telangana people by successive state governments, and the domination of leaders and business people from the Andhra region after the formation of the state, are the primary reasons for the separatist demand. Most people in the state believe this to be true. A related argument is that Telangana remained backward, or became backward, because of the injustice done to the region in the unified state of Andhra Pradesh.

While the argument of uneven development is true and applicable to all the sub-regions of the state, facts do not support the contention that Telangana became more backward or ‘underdeveloped’ in the unified state. A look at the data on the growth of pubic services such as educational institutions, hospitals, roads and electricity as also literacy, industrialization, per capita income and so on tells us that regional disparities have in fact come down since the formation of the state in 1956. Actually, several of the Telangana districts have made greater progress than those in the Andhra region. Studies using sectoral and overall development indices show that while a few districts in Telangana moved from a low development status in the 1950s to that of moderately developed or highly developed status by the 1990s, some districts in Andhra slipped down from highly or moderately developed to less developed status during the same period. The demand for a separate Telangana is more vigorous in the developed districts such as Warangal and Karimnagar, whereas support for the demand is lukewarm in the backward districts such as Mahbubnagar and Adilabad. So, the reasons for the demand for a separate state have to be found elsewhere, and not in the arguments of regional backwardness and injustice.

 

A major reason for the demand for a separate state could be the way in which the two regions had evolved over the 150 years since the Nizam of Hyderabad gave away the coastal districts (then known as circars) to the British East India Company in the latter half of the 18th century. With the construction of huge anicuts in the Krishna and Godavari districts in the middle of the 19th century, large tracts of land were brought under irrigation in British Andhra. Along with it came English education and better transport and communication facilities. Historians show how these developments enhanced trade and commerce, leading to the formation of a middle class in the rural areas and an educated urban elite in British Andhra.

The members of these new classes launched social reform movements, formed various kinds of associations to further group interests, entered the British administration, and took active part in the politics of the region, including the freedom struggle. Such a process in the Nizam-ruled Hyderabad region came later and, even when it did was slow. It is likely that these different trajectories of development in the two regions, at a time when modernity was ushered in because of British colonial rule, mattered not merely in the development of material conditions, but also the culture and psychological make-up of the people in these regions.

 

Second, the emotional integration between the people of the two regions that was expected to happen after the formation of a unified state did not take place, at least at a scale necessary to make the unification stable and an uncontested fact. So, the leaders of the Telangana agitation now say that the quarrel is not merely about jobs or water or funds for the development of the region, but one of preserving the cultural identity and self-respect of the people of the region. This is what goes by the name of ‘Telangana sentiment’, which most political leaders emphasize today as the basis for the creation of a separate Telangana state.

We should also note the fact that Hyderabad existed as a separate state for about eight years before it was merged with Andhra. While the idea of a greater Andhra found near unanimous and enthusiastic support in the Andhra region, opinion among the political elite in Hyderabad on the formation of a unified state for the Telugus was divided. Representations given by the Congress leaders of Hyderabad state to the SRC expressed apprehensions that in a unified state the more advanced people of the coastal region would dominate the educationally and politically backward Telangana region.

Keeping these apprehensions in view, the SRC recommended the constitution of the Telangana area into a separate state, with a provision for future unification should the people of both states be willing to merge. However, the Congress leaders from the two regions arrived at a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ to form a unified state with certain safeguards to the Telangana region built into the agreement. The leaders of the Telangana agitation often complain that the terms of this agreement were not adhered to in the unified state, especially the guarantees about employment and opportunities in educational institutions. The arrangement that if the chief minister was from one region, the other region should be given the position of deputy chief minister was also not complied with.

 

A third reason could be political. The problems of intra-party accommodation and the nature of inter-party competition have contributed to the resurgence of the demand for a separate Telangana. Dissident Congress leaders who were unhappy with power-sharing arrangements within the party, led the 1969 and 1973 agitations for separate states in the Telangana and Andhra regions respectively.

At a time when speculation about the possibility of new states filled the air and the Telangana intellectuals were building up a case for the creation of a separate Telangana, a prominent leader of the ruling TDP, K. Chandrasekhara Rao (KCR) left the party in 2001 to launch the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS). He was a cabinet minister in the TDP government but was dropped after the 1999 elections and made deputy speaker of the state assembly. A gifted public speaker, K.C.R. had the ability to rally the masses and intellectuals around the demand for a separate state based on the slogan of self-respect of the Telangana people, and the hurt caused to the Telangana people in the unified state. In the panchayat elections held soon after its formation, the performance of the TRS was impressive, securing about 20 per cent of the popular vote in the Telangana region.

The sudden emergence of the TRS and its popularity unnerved both the BJP, which entertained ambitions of emerging as an independent political player in state politics, and the Congress party that was biding its time to come to power in the next elections. The BJP, although in favour of a separate Telangana, could not initiate any action in that direction at the Centre or take an open stand because of its alliance with the TDP, which firmly stood in favour of a unified AP. The Congress leaders, however, realized that Telangana could be an issue to rally the people and unsettle the TDP in general. The Telangana legislators of the party formed the Telangana Congress Legislators Forum (TCLF) to carry out a campaign for a separate state. The central leadership also encouraged the TCLF by demanding the formation of a second SRC to consider the question.

 

The Congress and the TRS finally forged an electoral alliance to defeat the TDP in the 2004 elections. The Common Minimum Programme of the United Progressive Alliance, in which the TRS was a member, promised that ‘the UPA government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana state at an appropriate time after due consultations and consensus.’ However, once in power the Congress party procrastinated on the issue, claiming a lack of consensus among different parties in Parliament on the formation of the state. The real difficulty was an absence of consensus within the Congress party itself.

There are a few extraneous factors that contributed to the vigour with which the present phase of the agitation began and has persisted for more than a decade now. One is the politics of the new states. We know that the Indian polity became more federal in character after the breakdown of Congress dominance at the Centre. This was partly in response to the strident demands of the state governments, especially those led by the non-Congress opposition parties, for greater autonomy and powers to the states. Regional parties, coterminous with linguistic states, were at the forefront of this process.

While regional parties gave a marked specificity to state politics in the 1980s, they also began to play a prominent role in forging alliances and the formation of governments at the Centre. Their diminishing electoral support and the compulsion to depend on regional parties seemed to have persuaded the national political elites to break large states into small units as a way out of their predicament. They considered small states as an antidote to the increasing importance of state political leadership and state parties at the national level, as well as to strengthen the Centre vis-à-vis the states. By the late 1990s, the two major national parties – the BJP and the Congress – openly stated their preference for small states and seemed willing to consider the question of creating new states.

 

At its Kakinada session in 1997, the BJP passed a resolution favouring the formation of a separate Telangana state. In the 1998 Lok Sabha elections it gave the slogan, ‘one vote, two states’. The performance of the BJP in that election was spectacular; it stood on par with the Congress and received more votes than the TDP in the Telangana region. Attempts to revive the hitherto dormant sub-regional identities became vigorous with the formation of three new states in North India in November 2000. Demands for a better deal to the sub-regions and rectification of imbalances in regional development were converted into a demand for a separate state.

For a very long time, the Left parties have opposed the idea of dividing the state. Given their understanding of India as a multi-national state, and language being an important basis of each nationality, they actively opposed movements for a separate Telangana and separate Andhra during 1969-73. This time too, the CPI initially opposed the idea of a separate state and demanded a special package for the development of the Telangana region. But in 2007 it changed its position to support a separate Telangana because of the prevalence of a strong sentiment among the people of the region in favour of a separate state.

 

Several Marxist-Leninist groups also support the formation of a separate state for the region, although they uphold the position that Telugu-speaking people form one nationality. That leaves the CPI(M) as the only major party at the national and state level to support a unified state. However, CPI(M) leaders say that they will not come in the way of a Telangana state if other parties favour such a measure and are willing to support legislation to that effect.

Actually, in the early 1950s, the Communist Party had conducted a vigorous campaign for the creation of a greater Andhra (called Visalandhra) arguing that the people of the Telugu nation should be brought under one government. Compared to any other region, the party enjoyed its greatest support in both Telangana and Andhra region at that time, securing about one-third of votes in the 1952 elections in the Telangana region, and the 1955 elections in the Andhra region. The communist leadership was confident of winning political power and establishing a people’s democracy in the unified state. However, its electoral support declined over the years. Now that the communists have accepted to work within the constitutional framework, abandoning the vision of staging a revolution by liberating nationalities from the Indian Union, the argument that Telugu-speaking people as one nationality should continue to live in one state does not have the same significance any more.

 

In recent years the two new parties that have emerged have not taken a clear position of either advocating or opposing the creation of Telangana. The position of the Lok Satta party, which was launched on 2 October 2008 by Jayaprakash Narayan, is that a separate state should be created if people of the region so desire. However, he feels that a separate state will not solve the problems of the people until there is good governance and opportunities are created for the people to improve their living conditions. The Praja Rajyam Party, launched on 26 August 2008 by popular cine actor, Chiranjeevi, has also not taken a clear position on the issue. The fledgling party has formed a committee to study the issue.

While the earlier movement for a separate Telangana had tapered off within a couple of years, the present movement has continued for the last decade without any signs of abatement. A major difference between the two movements could be that while those who led the movement in 1969 were mostly Congress dissidents and could be persuaded to come back to the party fold with a promise of attractive political positions, the leaders of the present movement are outside the fold of the two major political parties and refuse to be co-opted by offers of power sharing.

Second, the 1969 movement was spurred by a fear that the mulki safeguards would lapse in that year, and from resentment that people from the coastal districts would take away employment opportunities in the united state. Once these fears and grievances were addressed through the promulgation of ordinances and laws, the movement subsided. Third, so far the movement has been peaceful, except for occasional diatribes and threats against the leaders and people of the Andhra region. While the agitators in 1969 coined slogans like ‘Andhras go back’, there are no such slogans or attacks on properties now. All this has made the present movement more enduring.

 

If language provides an important basis for the creation of political communities, it is good for people speaking the same language to come together within the boundaries of one state. If that is not possible for whatever reason, it is better for them to part ways in an amicable manner instead of living together in ill-will and acrimony. It seems that such a consensus is evolving around this kind of understanding as evident in the position taken by a large number of political parties in the state.

Is it possible for the people of the two regions, divided into two states now, to come together again in the future? The Telugu people are known for their shifting temperaments and identities. The same people who moved against the Congress party with such virulence during the separatist movements in the state, later voted overwhelmingly in its favour. People of the Telangana region, who agitated against the domination of the Andhra people, or at least rallied behind the leaders who opposed the domination of the Andhra leaders, overwhelmingly voted during the 1980s in favour of N.T. Rama Rao, a politician who hailed from the coastal region.

However, the fact remains that should AP be divided into two states, it will be the first major linguistic state of the country to be reorganized on grounds other than language. Although both Telangana and Andhra will remain linguistically homogenous states even after their reorganization, the belief that people speaking one language should live in one state stands challenged. Of course, this is already true of the Hindi-speaking population, and in a way, a separate Telangana means an extension of the same principle to the people speaking other languages. The nation may then have to seriously reconsider the grounds on which states exist or new ones are formed. If different historical experiences and psychological make up could be factors in the formation of new states, how can we make an objective assessments of such factors?

 

According to political commentators the Telangana issue will be crucial in deciding the winners and losers in the coming elections, at least in the Telangana region. As such, politics in the state is taking a curious turn. Given the pluralism of political parties in the state and proliferation of parties in the Telangana region, it is not possible for any party to fight the elections alone and hope to win. The Congress party won the elections in 2004 by performing the magnificent feat of aligning on the one hand with the TRS, which championed the cause of separate Telangana, and on the other with the Left parties, which opposed its creation. But over the past four years, it has managed to alienate both the TRS and the Left parties for different reasons.

The last time TDP fought elections in alliance with the BJP. However, it carefully distanced itself after the elections and befriended the Left parties by toning down its emphasis on market reforms. By revising its position on the Telangana issue, it has now moved closer to the TRS. Thus over the past few months, frantic efforts have been made by the TDP to build bridges with estranged friends and rivals. Congress party leaders are exuding confidence that their party will retain power in the next elections even if it has to go to the polls alone. Leaders at the state level maintain that the party is in favour of creating a separate state, but it is up to the central leadership to take a decision on this matter. They will appeal to voters on the basis of development achieved by the Congress government.

Political parties are clueless about the extent to which the performance of the incumbent government, regional sentiments and welfare schemes will influence voters. There is lurking fear among the parties that a position favouring the formation of a separate state by itself may not get votes. So, all of them are busy promising to bring long-term prosperity to the state, work for the welfare of the socially and economically backward castes and classes, and bring short-term individual benefits to different sections of society.

Regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming elections, the break-up of the state will have far-reaching consequences for the Indian polity. It will certainly necessitate a rethinking about the basis for the organization of states in India. If the formation of Andhra gave a fillip to the agitations for the formation of linguistic states in India, its division may give hope to movements elsewhere for further subdividing linguistic states. Is AP moving beyond linguistic lines and with what consequences to its internal boundaries and federal framework?