MANY FEARS AND hopes are riding piggyback on the Telangana dream. While its protagonists see it as the start of an era of progress, others feel it would be nothing but trouble.
For instance, there are serious apprehensions that once Telangana becomes a reality, Maoists will have a free run in the new state as in Chhattisgarh and will be able to further their infamous “red corridor” project.
The entry of Maoist sympathisers such as Balladeer Gaddar, Vara Vara Rao, Burra Ramulu and others in the present Telangana movement have strengthened these fears. However, those who have watched the movement closely dismiss such apprehensions.
“Any uprising is the outcome of injustice, and development will check such an uprising,” said Gaddar. “Telangana will end the miseries of people. We will have our waters, funds and focused development.”
For years, Maoists thrived in forests of north Telangana region in the districts of Nizamabad, Adilabad, Warangal and Karimnagar.
Although every political party describes the Maoist movement as a socio-economic problem, all governments have used strong arm tactics to deal with it as a law-and-order problem.
This has been the case with successive governments led by leaders from Jalagam Vengal Rao and Janardhan Reddy to N. Chandrababu Naidu to Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy.
After the failure of the talks between the YSR government and the Maoists, the left wing extremists have almost been wiped out in north Telangana, but are still thriving in the Andhra-Orissa Border (AOB) area because of their continuing activity in neighbouring Orissa.
“Maoists have influence only in problem areas, mostly in tribal belts”, said Prof. Kodanda Ram of the political science department in Osmania University. “Do you find them in places such as Vizag, Vijayawada, Kurnool or Hyderabad? It is just another stick to beat the Telangana issue.”
Many experts argue that the growth and spread of Maoist movement in Telangana was a consequence of backwardness of the region and not a cause for its backwardness.
For instance, Mahabubnagar, one of the most backward areas in Telangana, is not affected by the Maoist movement. Likewise, the entire coal belt of Telangana was the hub of Maoists, but coal production did not stop at any time.
Prof. Kodanda Ram also dismisses talk of small states being unstable because of MLAs falling easy prey to the lure of money. “It can happen anywhere”, he said. “Is not Uttar Pradesh famous for its Ayarams and Gayarams? Karnataka is another example. Even the Centre is not immune to it.”
Another argument put forth is that smaller states suffer politically in economic and social development terms. But C.H. Hanumantha Rao, a former Planning Commission member, disagrees.
“Smaller states are more viable and stable,” he says. “They are better governed. This is made clear by the Planning Commission reports.”
GDP growth rates of the newly-carved out Chhattisgarh during 10th Plan period increased from 6.1 per cent to 9.2 per cent, Jharkhand 6.9 per cent to 11.1 per cent and Uttaranchal 6.8 per cent to 8.8 per cent, he pointed out.
“Smaller states provide growth to local entrepreneurs and it will be a win-win situation for all,” he adds.
Despite all the “ifs and buts” regarding the viability of a separate state, people of Telangana were delighted by Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s birthday gift on December 9.
“It’s a victory for the people of Telangana — a five-decade dream come true”, said the Telangana Rashtra Samiti president, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, after ending his 11-day fast.
Prof. Jayashanker, a Telangana ideologue, said that Mrs Gandhi did the right thing by deciding in favour of Telangana. “It is a burning desire of the people”, he said. “When there can be nine Hindi-speaking states, why not two or three Telugu speaking states?”
His views are supported by the 86-year-old veteran leader, Konda Laxman Bapuji, who took part in the 1969 agitation and the one in 2009.
But the jubilation was shortlived. Over 100 Coastal and Rayalaseema MLAs and MPs resigned in protest, beginning with Congress MP Lagdapati Rajagopal from Vijayawada, and the Tadpatri Congress MLA J.C. Diwakar Reddy from the Rayalaseema region.
“How can the state be divided without consultations and protection to the respective regions?” asked Mr Diwakar Reddy. “We want an integrated state.”
Sources said that the UPA government took the decision based on intelligence reports which affirmed the groundswell in favour of Telangana and the likely eruption of large-scale violence during the “Chalo Assembly” programme. There were also fears of the BJP exploiting the situation.
But all hell broke loose after Union home minister P. Chidambaram stated that the Centre had decided to initiate the process of formation of a Telangana state.
Many Congress MLAs and MPs, who signed a single-line resolution authorising Mrs Gandhi to take a decision on the issue backtracked, and the major Opposition party, Telugu Desam, too went back on its decision to support Telangana.
Politicians and businessmen of Andhra and Rayalaseema are wary of problems concerning water-sharing, the status of Hyderabad, and the lack of major industries and institutions in their regions.
The Centre’s decision has caused a vertical split among the MLAs and MPs of Andhra Pradesh, transcending political divides. Telangana ministers, MPs, MLAs, and MLCs are in favour of Telangana while those from Rayalaseema and the Coastal favour a united state. It seems that another long drawn battle is just beginning.