Abstract
As the union government moves towards creation of a separate state of Telangana in India, this article attempts to present the history and political sociology of the movement that has raised and registered this demand on the national consciousness. The focus here is on the manner in which the issue has been articulated by the concerned intelligentsia. The article critically evaluates the various positions taken by the intelligentsia on the matter. It underlines the predominant role being played by intellectuals in demanding a separate state of Telangana within the Indian federal set-up. It also highlights the socio-political and intellectual contours of vision that have been envisaged for ultimate creation of the state.
Background
The state of Andhra Pradesh (AP) was created on 1 November 1956, with Hyderabad as its capital, by merging the nine Telugu-speaking districts (Telangana) of the old princely state of Hyderabad with the 11 districts of the Andhra state. The latter had been formed on 1 October 1953 by separating the districts from the Madras state (Rao, 1973; Vaikuntam, 2004). Thus, before 1947, Telangana was part of the Hyderabad state. In 1948, the union government integrated the Nizam state into the Indian union after an armed action known as ‘Police Action’ (Jadhav, 1997; Kodanda Ram, 2007).
According to provisional totals of 2011 census of India, 1 AP is the fourth-largest state in India with an area of 275,068 sq km and a population of 84,665,533. The state ranks fifth in terms of population. 2 It comprises 23 districts: 10 districts of Telangana (Adilabad, Hyderabad, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, Mahabubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy and Warangal); nine districts of Coastal Andhra (Srikakulam, Vijayanagaram, Vishakapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Guntur, Krishna, Prakasham and Nellore); and four districts of Rayalaseema (Chittor, Anantapur, Cuddapah and Kurnool).
Telangana has an old history of struggle and defiance against domination. During the rule of the Kakatiya dynasty in the eleventh century, the tribes rose against the kings protesting unjust taxation. A few centuries later, the Qutb Shahis who ruled from Golconda (now part of Hyderabad) had to battle the Mughal Emperor, Aurangazeb. At the time of the last Nizam—in the 1940s—there was an armed people and peasants’ struggle against him and his Jagirdars. (Nag, 2011: xi–xii)
Thus, a culture of resistance against oppression has historically been characteristic of the region (Thirumali, 2003).
The movement for a separate statehood for Telangana came about after the formation of AP in 1956. This article critically examines the problem and offers a commentary.
I
Marx and Lenin justified partisanship in intellectual practice. As Fredric Jameson argues in his introduction to Louis Althusser’s Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (2006: ix),
…Marxism is not a philosophy, I would argue (so far in agreement with Althusser): it is, like psychoanalysis and unlike any other contemporary mode of thought, what I will call a unity-of-theory-and-practice. This means that it has concepts but that those concepts are also forms of practice, so that one cannot simply debate them in a disinterested philosophical way without the uncomfortable intervention of practical positions and commitments.
But in some circles, partisanship in intellectual pursuit could even become partisanship as intellectual pursuit; a deliberate, conscious practice agnostic to considerations of fact and method. Such intellectuals could be from academia but would not be confined to them. Many, like Marx, an early example of the intellectual partisan, would become full-time, independent, party-based, etc., intellectuals and develop a healthy distance and disrespect for academia and academicians. For instance, Lenin seldom trusted intellectuals. He used phrases like ‘irresolute, unreliable, undisciplined, consumed with individualism, capricious, up in the clouds’ to describe them (Kolakowski, 1978: 390). In Lenin’s expectation, an intellectual had to be, first and foremost, a full-time professional revolutionary (which, in essence, both Marx and Lenin were). Another quality implied but not insisted upon was asceticism, a revolutionary asceticism. The latter was, as every revolutionary found in the field, an almost indispensable and highly desirable trait. The revolutionaries who were ascetic could survive better the hardship and rigour of the revolutionary life than those who did not. Thus was born the ‘sad militant’, the political ascetic (Foucault, 2004: xiv). Post-structuralist writers detect an essential fascism even in the most altruistic revolutionaries.
For many intellectuals in AP who adopted this tradition, renouncing their pre-revolutionary life/world meant, first, renouncing or avoiding university employment. Further, while a few renounced their ancestral wealth, a few renounced their caste/community names. Second, in AP, intellectual partisanship is not only ‘class’ based but extends to caste and gender as well. A mixed group drawn from these three denominations has been at the forefront for the movement for Telangana. Evidently, they have also added ‘region’ to their campaign portfolio. In many cases, one person may have in oneself all these affiliations which points to a remarkable ambidexterity. S/he may have ‘class’ consciousness, fight the actual caste oppression, critically interrogate ‘gender’ and protest against regional disparities, thus being active on all fronts.
The demand for Telangana has been conceived, nurtured, directed, articulated and kept alive by the intellectuals. A dominant section of these intellectuals works closely with the politicians and seemingly guides their activity. In the event of Telangana state becoming a reality, this group is most likely to wield considerable power and influence.
II
The political actors on the stage for Telangana can be divided into three broad groups. These actors include politicians, intellectuals, including lawyers, journalists, etc., besides students. Based on the issue they emphasise, the groups can be identified as geographic Telangana (Bhugolika Telangana), democratic Telangana (Prajaswamika Telangana) and social Telangana (Saamajika Telangana). A brief exposition of their respective stances as regards the necessity for a state of Telangana will be discussed next. The exposition is on the basis of intensive interviews conducted with the concerned intellectuals, politicians, etc. 3 A critique would be offered thereafter.
Geographic Telangana
The main contention of this group is that most of the problems of Telangana would be solved by and through separate statehood in India. The group deeply resents Andhra domination of Telangana. The group is aware that there are other issues in Telangana such as caste and class. However, it perceives these issues as ‘internal contradictions’. The first priority is to resolve what the group perceives to be the ‘external contradiction’, namely, Andhra domination. A separate state is being demanded because not only have the powers-that-be neglected to develop Telangana, they have also systematically exploited it, denying it its share of funds, taking over its economy, discriminating in matters of education, employment, industrialisation, and so on; in short, denial, deprivation, plunder and diversion. 4
Equally, if not more importantly, another basis for seeking a separate Telangana state is the cultural issue. Andhra domination over Telangana is perceived as a hegemonic relationship; whereas Telangana has had a distinct culture of its own. This culture has developed over the years, an important process having been the different struggles that erupted in the region; mainly, the struggles against the Nizam’s rule, particularly the Telangana armed struggle (1946–48). This was a defining struggle that ensured that the response to social injustice itself became an important identity for the people of the region. Telangana became synonymous with individual dignity and self-respect.
People here perceive that their dignity has been constantly undermined ever since the formation of the state of AP. Leaders from Andhra and Rayalaseema regions have been dominating the state’s politics and this domination has had its spin-offs in other areas such as economy and culture. The culture of the hegemonic power has decisively influenced the media, literature and so on. People in the Telangan region perceive this as cultural imperialism. Therefore, the argument goes, the formation of a separate state of Telangana is essential for the people to assert their political power in order to protect not just their economic interests but also dignity, self-respect and distinct culture.
As a counter-hegemonic strategy, an attempt is being made by the promoters of the separate state to reconstruct the history and culture of Telangana and portray it as superior to Andhra culture. The coincidental discovery of certain archaeological sites in Telangana has come in handy for imparting antiquity to the Telangana culture. A fort built without using bricks which is spread over 300 acres has been excavated at a site in Adilabad district. According to the intellectuals of this group, ‘this testifies to the antiquity of the fort as well as Telangana culture’.
This fort along with similar others have been traced to the 3rd and 4th century B.C. Secondly, industries such as metallurgy and iron and steel are said to have been in vogue in Telangana for the past 3000 years. Indeed, many village-names in Telangana are related to iron ore. For example, Orugallu (modern Warangal district): ‘gallu’ in Prakrit means ironstone. Similarly, names like ‘Chittala’, ‘Chotuppala’ mean iron wastage. Products such as arms, armour, cutlery, etc were produced both for domestic consumption as well as for export. Invoking archaeological evidence, the antiquity of Telangana is placed prior to the Mahajanapadas and Pataliputra of North India. (Jaikishan, 2009: 24)
The protagonists for ‘geographical Telangana’ contend that historical details (or even a mention of them) such as the above mentioned have not been documented properly since much of historiography has been written or directed by the people from the Andhra region. The latter highlighted their culture and history and made it appear to be the history of entire AP. Similarly, Telangana history does not find adequate mention in the textbooks. Further, many historical facts have been misrepresented or misinterpreted. 5 Therefore, a separate state is needed to restore and protect the culture of Telangana. In this sense, the demand for Telangana state on geographic lines is a means to an end—protection of Telangana culture.
The argument about cultural dissimilarity with the people from Andhra region is as follows: Telangana region has distinct ‘Ganga–Jamuni (composite)’ culture (Raj, 1987; Zahir, 2008). The people neither identify themselves as Hindus or Muslims but as Telanganites. The region has a cosmopolitan culture with people hailing from different regions such as Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. Thus, the Telangana culture has many similarities with north India. Unlike Andhra but like in north India, the primarily consumed food item is wheat (rotis), and the main festivals include Dusshera and Diwali. Since the harvesting season in the Telangana countryside is in October, Dusshera is celebrated, in contrast to the people of Andhra for whom the harvesting period is every January, which coincides with the Sankranti festival. During this period, ‘most of Hyderabad gets emptied of the people from the Andhra region since they go home for the festival’. There is very little depiction of Telangana dialect and culture in contemporary Telugu feature films because the film industry is predominantly under the ownership and control of Andhras. Telangana, its people and their dialect are shown in poor light, as inferior, coarse, etc.
The geographic Telangana perspective also touches upon an important aspect— river waters. Telangana is encircled by two major rivers of South India, Krishna and Godavari. Within the present geographical boundaries of AP, around 70 per cent of the catchment areas of the two rivers are in the Telangana region. Additionally, most of the tributaries of these rivers traverse its length and breadth. 6 If the water in these rivers flowing through the region is properly utilised, every acre of cultivable land available in Telangana could be provided with assured irrigation facilities and every village provided with assured drinking water. But Telangana has been denied its rightful share in the river waters by successive governments over the last five-and-half decades, irrespective of the political parties and leaders in power.
On the other hand, coastal Andhra has been the major beneficiary of the river waters utilised thus far. To be noted is the fact that, while determining the share of waters of river Krishna among the three riparian states, that is, Maharashtra, Karnataka and AP, the Bachawat Tribunal 7 allocated 811 thousand million cubic (TMC) feet of water to AP. The allocation of water among different regions of the state has, however, been the prerogative of the state government. 8 The real intention of the ruling sections is to divert the untapped water of rivers Godavari and Krishna to coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, depriving the Telangana regions of its due share in the waters (Jayashanker, 2004).
To make matters worse for the Telangana countryside, certain developments like the Green Revolution brought in cultivation of new varieties of rice which are dependent on intensive inputs of water; others inputs being fertilisers and pesticides. In the absence of surface water availability, the farmers are forced to go for bore-well technology to draw subsurface water from greater depths. An added phenomenon is the increased use of electric power thereby. Thus, heavy boring of subsurface semi-arid lands coupled with the steady decline of traditional waterdrawing techniques that were more eco-friendly and sustainable, etc., have led to the depletion of the hydrological regime. Extensive pumping of water has led to many bore-wells going dry. These developments, coinciding with drought, have had a devastatingly adverse impact on social life in Telangana, particularly for its rural poor. It has resulted in their marginalisation and migration, whereas desertification is creeping up the countryside. Indeed, a group of intellectuals depicted the enforced deprivation of the people of Telangana in a documentary, Still Seeking Justice, 9 in 2004. Indeed, farmers in Telangana have invested more money on bore-wells and pump sets than any other commodity over the years. But there is no guarantee that sinking a bore-well automatically ensures discover of water. On the contrary, bore-wells have sunk farmers into bankruptcy and driven them to suicides.
This is the gist of the argument for geographic Telangana. The view of the group wanting a democratic Telangana is presented next.
Democratic Telangana
The group arguing for a democratic Telangana overwhelmingly belongs to different shades of the extreme Left. This is despite the fact that for quite some time after the movement for a separate state gained momentum, the radical Left groups had not joined in. It is argued in circles other than the extreme Left that they joined the movement only because of the fear of getting marginalised. Their participation, therefore, is being attributed to strategic and tactical reasons rather than a genuine support for the movement.
Typically, this group has a ‘political economy perspective’ and engages in ‘class analysis’. In AP, however, the Left intellectuals can move from class to caste and back with considerable ease. In fact, one among them coined the term ‘claste’ to denote the dual basis of stratification. It does not help that most of the influential and charismatic members of this group belong to upper castes. They are now caught in a bind. They have deep reservations about the class, caste and elite character of the geographist–culturalists. On the other hand, the ‘organic intellectuals’ of social Telangana, once good friends and comrades, are today hostile to the left (if not to ideology, at least to its AP practitioners). They have jettisoned ‘class’ decisively and taken to caste.
The Left has chosen to fight on two fronts, class and caste, the lines between both being highly permeable. They are opposed to imperialism of global capital, to imperialist policies followed by the state government, etc., due to which the people of Telangana have been affected. They are against privatisation of resources. They are against feudal landlords not only from Andhra region but also the Telangana variety. They hold both responsible for the condition in Telangana. They stand for empowerment of all sections of society. In short, their fight is against Andhra and Telangana feudalism and capitalism–imperialism emanating from all the global metropolises.
An interesting thesis put forward by the left is that, out of the 23 districts of AP, only two-and-a-half districts comprising the delta region (apparently Krishna, Guntur and West Godavari districts) got developed. In this process, only two-and-a-half castes developed themselves (Kamma and Kapu; half castes are Reddys and Rajus). This has been thus mainly a delta phenomenon. These caste groups now proceeded to control the economic, political and cultural domains.
The foundation for the development of the three districts was, in fact, laid by British colonialism. The process of laying a railway line from Vijayawada to Vishakhapatnam resulted in clearing all the forests between the two towns. The British then proceeded to turn this land into a delta region through dams and irrigation projects. 10 The delta region thus became irrigated on a massive scale. Displaying considerable enterprise, the Kamma and Kapu caste communities took aggressively to commercial farming. In due course, they generated huge agrarian surpluses which they invested both in land as well as in other sectors; film industry being a notable example. Dominant presence in films, print and electronic media led to a kind of cultural domination.
The above-mentioned uneven development, according to the Left, is characteristic of imperialism. The result has been that while more than 20 districts of AP could not develop, two-and-a-half districts have turned prosperous.
The question that can very well be asked of the Left is therefore: if the underdeveloped districts span all the three regions of the present state, then why cannot the development of these be the demand rather than development of (districts in) Telangana alone? What is the rationale for a separate Telangana state? Alternately, why cannot the two-and-a-half districts be formed into a separate state, leaving the government with the reminder of AP to concentrate on for development, etc.; a case of management by exception (MBE) perhaps?
The Left position is that Andhra has had a modern way of development, whereas Telangana has had feudal mode of evolution and that they have developed different types of societies with different cultures. It was a tragedy that during 1956, these two societies were forcefully merged for political reasons but culturally, these two regions could not become one. Even the language is different. During the pre-Nizam periods (to which we will return subsequently), there was a uniform manner of speaking Telugu. From the Nizam’s period, Telugu acquired differences: Andhra Telugu became more Sanskritised and later Anglicised, while Telangana Telugu became a mixture of Urdu and Telugu. Moreover, Urdu was made the official language of the Nizam state (Zahir, 2008).
Social Telangana
There is a different group promoting a social Telangana, highlighting issues at two levels—external and internal. The ‘external’ argument implies that the Andhra leadership is responsible for Telangana’s problem as it shaped the policy of the state right from its inception; its agenda being basically to exclusively utilise the physical resources of Telangana. The ‘internal’ dimension of the problem arguable has been that Telangana was made backward because of the existence and perpetuation of the culture of dominant castes.
During the Nizam’s rule, members of these castes—Velama, Reddy, etc.—got together to assume the functions of landlord, revenue officials and so on. After the Nizam state’s merger into the Indian union, they became public representatives, politicians and officials. According to Simhadri (2008: 21):
from 1952 to 1956, in Hyderabad State and Andhra State, and even after 1956, only two or three dominant caste groups are ruling the Andhra Pradesh state. First it was Brahmins followed by Reddys, Velamas and Kammas have been enjoying the political power. The Reddys, as a caste, held sway over chief ministership for 32 years, the Kammas for 16 years, the Brahmins for 5 years, the Velamas for 4 years and the Scheduled castes only for 2 years. There was no chief minister from BC’s, ST’s, Muslims, Kapus, Vaishyas and Women groups.
The policies of different political parties have basically been the same since power only changed hands among the dominant castes. Even the Telangana issue is being articulated for their benefit. Moreover, civil society consists of professional associations of teachers, lawyers, employees, journalists, students, etc., and these have been preponderantly influenced by the dominant castes. These organisations have only been reinforcing the dominant power structure.
However, a new trend is evident in the political parties today, according to this group. Sections of party membership that are drawn from deprived sections (backward castes, Scheduled Castes [SCs], Scheduled Tribes [STs], minority communities, etc.) have started to question and even defy their respective leadership over the Telangana issue. Though in the initial stages members of the social Telangana group highlighted issues like water and irrigation, they gradually shifted their focus from developmental issues to the caste/cultural question. An important reason for this shift was the realisation that the Telangana movement also was in the hands of the dominant castes.
The group’s position therefore has been that if the caste issue is not addressed, then the crux of the Telangana problem would remain untouched. Because even if a separate state is obtained, benefits like water resources, land, political power, economy, etc., would go to the upper-caste sections in the new state. The Dalit issue, women’s issue, etc., cannot be separated from the Telangana movement because they are all interwoven. Therefore, the socio-cultural dimension is equally important. A region cannot be seen only as a physical entity.
Moreover, whose culture is it that is getting articulated? It is only the culture of the dominant castes, according to the social Telangana group. 11 The present power elites could capture power by imposing their cultural hegemony over the lower castes. Hence, to gain political power, the cultural terrain needs to be contested. Caste colonialism needs to be eliminated. In Telangana, the subaltern culture is different from Hindu mainstream culture. There is a collective consciousness and cultural unity among the subaltern sections. There is a great degree of secular notions internalised among them. There is much in common, for instance, between Hindus and Muslims. The time has come to form a federation of the excluded castes and communities to achieve their communitarian and political goals. The Dalit–Bahujans, because of their numerical significance in Telangana, stand a bright chance of forming a government. This makes them participate in the movement for a separate Telangana. We will return to this aspect subsequently.
III
In a very perceptive article, Reddy (2009) observes that ‘Telugus have had no strong cultural identity and this fact is once again amply demonstrated by their anxiety to split the state for no good reason into two for now and may be three or four units before long’. He observes that with the formation of AP in 1956, for the first time in their history, most of the Telugu people were brought together in their homeland, with an opportunity to discover their roots and foster their cultural identity. This, according to him, was the intention in creating language-based states. He laments that we now seem to be throwing away the hard-earned opportunity.
According to Reddy (2009), the self-destructive process began when the unified state was named AP after the Andhras,
who were outcasts living on the fringes of the Aryan society and with whom all the social intercourse was forbidden by that notorious law-giver, Manu. We should have called the new state by the old name, Telangana or Telugunadu or Teluguseema; this itself would have reminded us of our common heritage—the ancient Telugu language.
This language, derived from the Dravidian core and much influenced by Paisachi Prakritam, was known as Desi for over 2,000 years and found its place even on the coins of pre-Sathavahana times, according to Reddy. He complains that its origins and early history never interested our scholars who were brought up on the ‘false notions of a Sanskrit ancestry for our non-Sanskritic language’.
Reddy observes that Telugu grammar remains unknown even to Telugu people. No attempt has been made to present a basic grammar text after Chinnaya Suri of the nineteenth century, who, limited by his time and circumstance, did not think of Telugu as a Dravidian language and tried to subject it to Sanskrit grammar, creating in the process an enduring confusion in the minds of students and scholars. Though the Telugu University 12 has been in existence for 25 years, it has yet to evolve a standard Telugu usage. Instead, we have been making fun of regional variations and unintentionally hurting each other’s sensitivities and foolishly taking pride in one’s own lingo.
Reddy (2009) blames the political leadership, which
has lost long-term vision and neglected the language and culture, which alone can anchor a people in their tradition. Through the best part of the last half-century, we have had a political leadership which paid scant attention to these aspects…While one chief minister has abolished the various academies fostering the fine arts, another decried the study of history and drove our boys and girls to call centres and sweatshops of Information Technology. In the absence of a core culture that anchors all of us together, it is no wonder we, the Telugus, have arrived at this cultural impasse. We have a lesson to learn from our Tamil cousins who through sheer will and hard work regained for Tamil its due place while we have lost whatever cultural advantages we had.
Now, this is a cultural argument for a Telugu land that once was, that stretches back to antiquity, to a Dravidian antiquity around the same time as the ancient Tamil culture (at whatever stage the latter was in). What, therefore, was in antiquity, and which was lost in the colonial period and was unwittingly reclaimed with the creation of AP. Thus, Reddy’s is a historical reading for continuity despite the intervening discontinuity, while the separatists’ reading is actually for discontinuity, even while highlighting continuity. We will try to understand how this is so.
The intellectuals from Telangana themselves admit that the Telangana language emerged from Pali/Prakrit. Reddy, too, pointed out that Telugu as such emerged from its Dravidian core. If the Sanskritic ancestry of Telugu can be held to be untrue (by sustained scholarly research), then we arrive at a position whereby it can be reasonably understood that the entire Telugu land spoke (barring minor inevitable variations) and wrote, more or less, one language. Even today, formal or written Telugu is used, in very similar manner, by people of the three regions of AP. The variations are seen the most with regard to spoken Telugu.
And what is this entire Telugu land? According to Subbarayan (1967: 12):
Historical sources tell us that Andhras are a set of Aryan people who came to the region to colonise. By that time the region was having a comparatively developed people. Aryans preferred to call them as ‘Nagas’. For the evolution of the word ‘Telugu’, various interpretations are given. One of them suggests that people living in the region between three lingas (Saivite shrines) located in Kalahasti (Chittoor), Srisailam (Kurnool) and Draksharamam (Godavari) are Trilingas or Telingon (Telangana). Hence the language spoken by these people came to be known as Telugu. Some substitute Srikaleshwaram (Karimnagar district) for Srisailam. Nevertheless, the region between Pranahita, a tributary of the Godavari in the north and river Krishna in the south offered people to live together in peace, understand and unite into one homogenous Telugu society. By the efflux of time the cultural synthesis has been so ideal that the two terms ‘Andhra’ and ‘Telinga’ or ‘Telugu’ became synonymous with each other to designate the land, the people, the language spoken by the inhabitants of the region.
According to Adiraju Veerabhadra Rao, a well-known writer on Telangana, the region means Trilinganam, the three lingas at Draksharamam (Godavari), Srisailam (Kurnool) and Kaleshwaram (Karimnagar). To Rao, Telangana or Telugu land covers all these regions that are at present Andhra Pradesh.
Thus, as a leading member of the democratic Telangana group observed: ‘We can notice that three distinct regions of Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana have emerged only during the Nizam period (1748–1948); for the past 200 years. If we had not been divided we would have been united.’
An observation can thus be made: the Telangana of antiquity to the pre-colonial period is the whole, a part of which is today’s Telangana as identified by the separatists. The latter was a feature of a phase from the Nizam’s rule to the British domination. It is this region that the separatists are demanding; a neo-Telangana? This is in keeping with a discontinuous reading of Telangana history. If, going by historical evidence, all the 23 districts of AP can be considered to be Telangana, the agitation or movement is only demanding 10. In a cultural–civilisational way of putting it, 200 years of discontinuity is being privileged at the cost of 2,000 years of continuity.
The much-maligned Telugu film industry of today has had creative and poetic personalities who hailed from different regions of AP but upheld the beauty of Telugu as such; who considered all the three regions to be equally Telugu land. Telugu film lyrics can be cited by the dozen, which have established themselves deep in the Telugu subconscious across the three regions of the state. Lyricists like C. Narayana Reddy (incidentally hailing from Telangana), Mallemaala, Daasharathi (also from Telangana) and the legendary Sri Sri have done much to promote Telugu consciousness among the people through their lyrics, which are known and hummed, if not sung, in Telugu households across Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema. The film industry undeniably has had the predominant presence of the Andhras. But this aspect was not taken seriously by Telugus thus far. Rather, actors like N. T. Rama Rao, Nageshwar Rao, Krishna, Shobhan Babu, Krishnam Raju, Chiranjeevi, etc., all either originating from Andhra and/or belonging to the Kamma and Kapu community dominant in Andhra, acquired larger-than-life image and fan following throughout AP. The play-back singer, S. P. Balasubhramanyam, though originating in Andhra, is not only a legend across AP but in the entire South India. In this one respect, Reddy (2009) is wrong. It is not as if there have been no avenues of fostering Telugu identity.
There is, therefore, much to be said on the cultural question. But behind all these, however, is a reality of continental proportion—the caste/cultural reality of the Dalit–Bahujan people of the Telangana region. We now turn to this aspect.
Social Revolution in One State: Envisioning Social Telangana
If there is any substance in the argument for a separate Telangana state, it is seemingly found in the demand for social Telangana. The claim here seems to be unambiguous, agenda driven, potentially transformative and therefore, imbued with a vision. The vision is one of the backward castes/classes constituting a majority-of-sorts in Telangana and thus converting numerical strength into electoral power. The potential of Dalit–Bahujans forming a government at state level and using that power to effect social change is quite possible given a secure consolidation in their ranks and an effective leadership. This could well make for social-revolution-in-one state (a’la socialism-in-one-country).
The Dalit–Bahujan thinkers in Telangana are indeed aware of this possibility:
Now is the time to build in our own language and knowledge. Life form decides your worldview. It is the time to form a federation of the excluded castes and communities to achieve our communitarian and political goals on the basis of the principle that every individual should blossom. Every community—regional, caste, gender and class—should represent itself to form staunch democratic governance. Our panchayats, eco-friendly life, our sense of fairness, our wisdom of justice, our experience of co-existence should be on the basis to form a federation of communities to conduct movements. Such movements should strengthen the communities of participants and their consciousness and that would guide the electoral power, not the so-called leaders. We shouldn’t assign the responsibility of our representation to others, and promote party politics that subordinated us, that sold our interest and the future of children, that destroyed our culture, that demeaned our language and knowledge. We must protect our lands, streams, crops and culture. We must assert and prove that we lived centuries with values, ethics and culture; that was not the culture of selling buying—humans, water, hills and everything that has use-value. We too aspire for development and cultural modernization with broader human and social interests in contrast to what the authors of globalization, liberalization and privatization are doing. Our land, our forests, our animals, our streams are our lives. We will never externalize them from us. (Simhadri et al., 2007: 26)
This is nothing short of an ‘alternate vision’, a civilisational choice that desirably ought to be empowered by a political mandate. Indeed, the social Telangana model can provide a ground for subalterns to think of directly exercising power in the Indian union.