Skip to main content

What makes for Political Stability? -II

{ In renewed context of Telangana issue }

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Frederich Nietzsche.
"History is mostly guessing; the rest is prejudice."- Will Durant

I think anyone who's well-versed with Statistics would be well-aware of the fact that any given facts could be interpreted & twisted into whichever way one wishes to.(Provided one does possess the necessary intellect). Thats the reason why all of us who are born into the same world think vastly different from one another. However we have no control over most things that we're born into & have to accept the world through the prism of one's upbringing. Some things in life assume significance only when one identifies oneself with certain tag without ever being able to question them.

The unity of Telangana people appears to be unbelievable, yet when one looks for real life situations, at times of crises we usually do associate ourselves with one identity when we feel its threatened though we usually might not be passionate of that identity otherwise. A classic example is that of Mr Jinnah who was never a devout & orthodox Muslim, yet since he felt that the interests of Muslims can't be secured in United India, it was best to separate & for achieving this end, he stroked the passions of his people on the point which means most to them - religion. Hence, the newly formed unity in Telangana is a consequence of such propaganda wherein one needs to identify themselves with the separatists to be labelled sane & in sync with the current Spirit. Simultaneously, the Seemandhra people are opposed to this and united in their endeavour for Samaikyandhra because they're supposed to do so. At times of turbulence, one can't maintain independent thought.

As regards the history, its outright tricky. Telangana people talk about history since 1956 and claim that they were different in their culture & hence the incompatibility. But one only needs to look further to be assured. India is highly heterogeneous society & India as we know today was hardly a single coherent unit baring few instances in history. Indians don't pretend that we're all united by any administration since recorded history. Each kingdom was a country by itself, & conquests, battles and the quest for supremacy was always there. Until Britishers left us, there was no geographical nation-state that could be identified as "India". India included the Indian subcontinent (including what are now called Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka) and the only thing we had in common was that we all were exploited & ruled (directly/indirectly) by Britishers.

Hence, perhaps going only a little further by the argument that "we were always different" , all the 500 plus princely states into which India was found by Nehruji & Sardarji have an equally compelling case for separate state. A society consists of nothing but a certain sects of sub-societies as do states consist of sub-states. Each sect & sub-state were always different while yet maintaining cordial relationships with one another & living in harmony. Jinnah was in a way right that Muslims were always different, yet what he perhaps overlooked is the fact that despite tensions & occasional fights, most of Indians were united by the necessities of mutual needs & requirements. Again one need not pretend that they had any altruistic concerns for anybody, each maintain peace for their own ultimate peace & benefit.

AP was formed for administrative convenience & if its not working for certain section of people, fine, lets talk over it & settle the issues. Here, I do honestly feel that intellectuals from Seemandhra should come forward & talk about it rather than using their power to avoid the inevitable. Since, the issue has already come out, there's no use suppressing it any longer. It will only further the unification of pro-Telangana forces.

Also, Hyderabad is another issue which is quite unmatched in its complexity. I think even Telangana people will concede that if for arguments sake they agree to make Hyd'bad a Union Territory, all opposition would die down with immediate effect. In fact even the separate Telangana agitation would die down, for Hyd'bad is the golden key through which Telanganas are looking forward to unlock through the uncertain future. Contrary to all claims, the tussle IS mostly about Hyd'bad on both sides.

The protests for separate state usually occur in remote far off places away from State Capital. Here, the irony is that Capital is prosperous island amidst sea of poverty. There have been claims by Andhras that Hyd'bad owes its newfound prosperity due to them, whereas Telanganas brush aside this saying that since liberalization, development would have taken place anyway irrespective of Andhra settlers, & infact they were effects of this primary cause. Now, I would like to adapt Richard Feynman's quote "You can't say A is made of B, or vice versa.All mass is interaction."

Hence, I think it would be better to state that development of Hyd'bad was through an interaction of various factors & no single factor can claim the entire credit for it. I feel that most well-off Seemandhra people usually do invest some amount for homes in Hyd'bad where most of opportunities are available. It does make them insecure to know that they no longer localites & infact are now 'settlers'.

As regards the underdevelopment of Telangana region, I feel it was never a deliberate ploy. Our politicians keep promising so many things but are never under any obligation to own it up later. "I said it, but I never meant it" is a standard syndrome of all politicians & for this reason alone, those politicians from Seemandhra never felt any compunction while taking a U turn on their "no-objection" stand to Telangana. Underdevelopment did happen. Its unfortunate. But you credit Indian politicians of too much conscience when you claim that they developed few areas at the cost of other. Still, this is India, we have democracy, TS must be formed if majority public feels so.

Yet, these must be carefully deliberated upon & emotive issues should be kept aside so that mobs don't get restless. If mobs are not tamed by strong leaders then we shall see revisit the horrors of Godhra kind of events.I am deeply suspicious of the unrestrained passions of the mob & fancy myself to be a good student of history to realise that once the dormant fires of fanaticism are stoked there is no knowing where it might end. French Revolution started off with tremendous hopes for the new era of republic governance. Unfortunately, power corrupts even the most incorruptible.Robespierre was soon to indulge in deplorable acts which was the reason why French Revolution was sparked in the first place.

Russian Revolution was supposed to shake off the imperial forces & the arrogant behaviour of Czars. Yet, it had the misfortune to be soon replaced by the most brutal dictator that ever ruled Russia, Stalin.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that both sides must discuss. Nothing is certain & we who merely read certain documents 50 years later on can never be sure of the motivations that were behind those. Past is past. The future lies ahead, and without mutual-respect & spirit of tolerance there can never be a peaceful solution.


Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …