08 November, 2006
There are several instances in the history of political movements in India and elsewhere that show how the question of leadership assumes very significance. Although movements are supposed to throw leaders and elevate them during the course of movements, the other way round is also possible in the case of some popular movements in the country. Take the case of Jai Telangana movement of late 1960s. In this instance, political leaders led the movement to its nadir, but failed to sustain it thereafter, and thus worth noting. The movement attracted the national headlines and thereby secured the popular support in the elections held in 1971. Like the JP Movement of mid 70s, the Jai Telangana movement was a popular youth movement. Incidentally, it was Indira Gandhi who faced the challenges of both these movements, and failed to manipulate them electorally. Failed to respond to such political upheavals in a democratic manner, she had to resort to anti-democratic and coercive means, only to betray the spirit of those movements. Of course, the leaders and followers of these movements tried to shirk their responsibilities for their acts of collusion with Indira Gandhi, overtly or covertly. They proved to be the sabotagers of such historic movements.
In the case of Jai Telangana movement, once Congress Union Steel Minister, Marri Chenna Reddy hijacked the Telangana Praja Samiti (TPS) movement of students and employees of Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh and led it to its successful end. Chenna Reddy replaced its first president A.Madanmohan so as to politicalise the movement. Accordingly, this movement-turned party, that secured the popular mandate in terms of winning 11 Loksabha seats (out of 14 seats), swimming across all the currents against the entrenched Congress and the Communists, from the region. Failed to take on the Durga-Indira Gandhi, the Chenna reddy leadership had to yield to the pressures and favours of the Prime Minister. Thus he had to surrender all the TPS’s MPs to Indira Gandhi for few crumbs and thereby sabotaged the movement once for all. However, there was not much noise raised against the act of betrayal, from any quarter including the followers of the TPS. What is discernible from this instance is that the leadership is like a double-edged sword, which can ensure success of a movement, or else it can water down the movements as and when they choose to do so. Thus, the leadership is very crucial in any democratic movement. Although the Telangana movement has always been a democratic one, as the popular mandate was recorded on couple of occasions, the leadership played a dubious role. Unless the leaders are exemplary, one cannot expect them to perform better.
Was the ‘gentlemen agreement’ not an historical blunder?
It is pertinent to recollect the violation of this agreement by the first ever chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, Neelam Sanjeeva reddy ridiculing the post of Deputy Chief ministership as sixth finger and thus useless! While he served as Deputy Chief Minister in the B.Gopal reddy’s regime till October 31, 1956, the post became ridiculous to him by November 1, 1956! It was one of the six-point formulas that were violated on the very first day of formation of Andhra Pradesh. Leave alone its sanctity and popular support, the six-point alone was the basis for state formation. There was no referendum of our people, nor was there any recommendation of the SRC (which recommended against merger of Telangana with Andhra state, indeed!) to that effect. Even the Hyderabad State Assembly was divided on the hasty decision. Surprisingly, Prime Minister Nehru’s views on the need of continuation of Telangana reflect the feeling of the then Central government.
Then what precipitated the illegal action of hasty merger was the imposition of Andhra Congress leaders’ viewpoint in the form of ‘Gentlemen agreement’, an historical blunder that was never respected either in letter or in spirit. Who were these gentlemen? Which party they belonged to, by and large? It is those congress leaders who were under the control of Congress coterie that played a dubious role so as to bulldoze the Telangana leaders. Since the Congress party members largely represented the ‘gentlemen agreement’, then that party alone has to own the responsibility. Incidentally, the formation of the state was contractual and conditional (as it was subject to six-point formula/gentlemen agreement), and its very violation on the very first day can be understood as negating the state formation itself! How can the contract be continued if one of its conditions were violated? Does it not tantamount to one-sided contract? It is regrettable to note that such one-sided contract has been imposed on Telangana for that past five decades, thanks to its leaders’ stony silence.
Can minority ever outwit the majority?
In the Andhra Pradesh Legislative House of 294 members, only 107 members hail from the Telangana region, which can never have any veto power against the 187 members from non-Telangana areas. Obviously, in the case of any democratic institution, it is the view of the majority that always outwits the minority, not vice versa. Since, there is hardly any protection for a minority viewpoint in the Westminster model (British) of democracy, the minority is bound to bear the brunt of the majority rule. Thus, the rule of majority, that is of non-Telangana areas in Telangana region, for it is merged with Andhra state in 1956, continues unabated. Even if the Chief Minister belongs to the majority party, which obviously has to command majority in non-Telangana areas, he cannot be expected to do develop, leave alone favour, the region the way his people expect him to do so.
For instance, the fate of G.O. No. 610 (that exposes how non-local candidates were appointed against the local quota some 25 years ago) is still hanging in the air. Apparently, almost all political parties favour, in principle, implementing the G.O. No. 610, but did nothing as far as its practicality is concerned. Thus, one can imagine its fate, as its implementation is left to those biased bureaucrats who were actually responsible for the act of illegal recruitment. How come some bureaucrats act so arrogantly that even Girglani had to complain about non-cooperation of government officials in identifying, leave alone punishing, those illegal employees who were appointed long long ago? How come they fail to comply with the norms of government-appointed Girglani commission for more than two years? Where do they get strength from, or tacit cooperation of? How can the government permit such erring officials to continue in office? It is not easy to answer to these questions. For, it is the government that is dominated by the majority in the Assembly of Andhra Pradesh that is responsible for the behaviour of the officials, be it their action of appointing non-locals or inaction of covering up their misdeeds for so long.
Whether the Telangana CMs failed to ‘develop’ the region?
Thus, the arguments of ‘development by Telangana chief ministers’ (P.V.Narsimha Rao, M.Chenna Reddy, T.Anjaiah) can be dismissed as mischievous. It may be noted that Jalagam Vengal Rao who cannot be considered as Telangana leader (as he migrated from Krishna district), and thus continued in office without any interruption! Unlike other Andhra Chief Ministers, Telangana leaders always appointed Deputy Chief Ministers from the Andhra-seema region in their cabinets, so as to implement the six-point formula. Leave alone ‘developing Telangana’ our chief ministers never completed their full term so far. However, paradoxically, it is only non-Telangana chief ministers who not only completed their full terms but also created history. Chandra babu surpassing the record of Brahmananda reddy’s long tenure is a case in point. On the other hand, in the case of Telangana leaders, even a great leader like PV could not continue as chief minister of the state for one full year, whereas he completed five year term as prime minister of India, not withstanding his minority-party status at Delhi! In fact, PV was not a separatist like his predecessors, but an integrationist! However, he had to lose his position (CM) for hailing the decision of Supreme Court w.r.t. Mulki rules, as the Jai Andhra movement demanded his resignation. Of course, it is a different matter that even during PV’s regime, the state of Andhra Pradesh failed to get several pending projects cleared, leave alone developing Telangana! Thus, one can imagine the fate of Telangana, in any sector. Viewed in this backdrop, one finds it odd to offer convincing answers to critics who raise questions like why did Telangana leaders(as CMs and PM) fail to develop the region, why do these leaders keep mum when there were discriminatory policies being pursued, why did the Telangana intellectuals raise their voice only when there were non-congress regimes in the state, and whether there was any mandate for Telangana leaders to share power with the Congress party that makes a volte-face on the demand of state.
In any case, it is ridiculous to view Telangana state demand as demand for either ‘welfare’ or ‘development’, be it regionally or economically, as is propagated by the present chief minister. Because, once such argument is promoted, then there are electoral communists ready to join the chorus of raising the question of ‘backward regions’ and demand to treat Telangana on par with those backward regions of the state viz., Rayalaseema, Uttarandhra etc. Then they would be generously seeking the ‘packages’ ‘development funds’ from the central government and thereby confuse the genuine demand of Telangana state once for all. Further, it is also ridiculous to treat Telangana issue as the issue of ‘size’ or ‘administration’ of the region, as is diplomatically raised by the parties and groups like BJP and RSS. As a matter of fact, once the demand is conceded, the Telangana would be bigger state than those existing 16 states in India today! With a population of more than one and half times of that of Nepal, the Telangana state would be of 3.5 crore size. Unlike other three states which were created by the BJP in the year 2000, the state of Telangana does not require any special money for the construction of its state capital city, as the centuries-old Hyderabad is located in the heart of Telangana itself!
Was it also not the failure of the non-congress parties?
At the other end, it so happened that the non-congress/opposition parties could not influence the ruling parties and leaders w.r.t. development of the region. At least, they could have strove for undertaking some irrigation and power projects here and there in Telangana. Further, these opposition parties failed to fight for ensuring employment opportunities, leave alone establishing some new industries in their region. In the name of industrialising backward region, the Andhra capitalists were cornering concessions and subsidies on the one hand, but they were importing employees from Andhra areas into Telangana-based industries. While Andhra capitalists were permitted to pollute Telangana lands and fields and thereby to derive industrial profits/benefits, they were not asked to employ the local youth in the Telangana industries. Instead, Nizam-established industries were being closed down and sold out to the Andhra entrepreneurs at a throw away prices.
But still these parties, particularly those from the communist ranks, albeit made some noise now and then, but colluded with the ruling parties/regimes, as if the Telangana development was not their botheration. Why is it that the opposition parties were indifferent to rising unemployment in Telangana? Why is that old irrigation projects were not being completed in Telangana, whereas new projects are planned in Andhra region? Pulichintala project that caters to the needs of third crop in the Coastal area is being implemented on war footing is a case in point. Why it is that farmers in the same state were treated in different ways, (for Andhra peasants were provided CHEAP water with canal-irrigation, whereas Telangana peasants were forced to go for COSTLY bore well-irrigation)? Why is it that there were no agitations being launched when non-local candidates were appointed against local quota, affecting the job-prospects of thousands of Telangana youth? Why is it that there were no agitations against the failure of implementing the G.O. No. 610? These are some questions that deserve answers from the communist parties which believe in equity and equality, linguistic unity, working class unity, peoples’ unity etc.
Was it not the communists’ betrayal of Telangana cause?
For those of us who have studied the communist activities in Telangana, their silence alone would be the only answer. Since they cannot reject these questions as illogical, they have to pretend that their silence would speak better. Because, they are simply subjective, biased and opportunistic, they neglect any sort of objective analysis. They practice what they do not preach, or preach what they do not practice. They are hypocritical and played the game of villains, as far as Telangana is concerned. One can trace the roots of the communist hypocrisy in their age-old struggle for linguistic states. Their approach towards religion, region, caste and community are smacked of their farce-class analysis. While they were always engaged in class-analyses on the state, independence, nationalism, secularism, path of development in India, their activities were influenced by their opportunistic shifting stands. Their agitations were based on the sheer electoral objectives. Their elections were being influenced by their compromises on militancy. Their governments were being continued due to their collaborationist policies with their class enemies. As they colluded with their Andhra Congress counterparts in finalising the Telangana-merger, against the popular will of the Telangana people, in the name of VISHAALAANDHRA LO PRAJAA RAJYAM! They helped the Andhra capitalists to colonise Telangana internally so as to continue loot and plunder unabated.
Take the case of CPM leaders, who are playing the role of sabotage in Telangana, long before they emerged on the Indian political scene. Their Bengal BOSSES were competing with their counterparts in other states to attract foreign funds in Calcutta, but opposing the same in Delhi. One can cite several such hypocritical practices of the CPM, which expose their Bengal-bias on the one hand and myopic view of Telangana. That is not all. There is another dimension to their consistent opposition to the cause of Telangana state. More than their Bengal-bias (as some would believe that their opposition stems from their antipathy towards separate state demands of Gorkhaland and Northern Bengal etc), the Andhra-bias undermined the Telangana comrades. Thus, not a single Telangana comrade was ever elevated to the level of State Secretary, leave alone making him a politburo member! Two young Politbureau members, Sitaram yechury and Raghavulu(both hail from Andhra region) alone are controlling the party affairs completely today. Obviously, none can take on these Andhra comrades to question their Andhra-bias towards their Telangana counterparts!
Thanks to the heroic Telangana peasant struggle that cost the lives of ten thousand Telangana villagers, the Andhra communists (P.Sundarayya) became the main opposition leaders in the first Loksabha itself. Whereas, the Telangana leadership that bore brunt of feudal capitalist onslaughts has always been the loser, leave alone leading the Indian communist movement in Andhra at least! For, they did not trust Telangana mass leaders to occupy the highest party positions in the state till date. Thus, once Telangana mass leaders like DVRao, Omkar and BNReddy were ridiculed and dismissed from the party. On several occasions the party fielded Andhra comrades from Telangana constituencies/areas, but not the other way round. In the recent elections to LokSabha too, the CPM fielded a Bejawada Baburao from the Telangana seat (Bhadrachalam), whereas in the elections to the Rajyasabha, the party got one Nellore-Madhu-reddy elected. Even in the party positions too, less said the better, as Andhra comrades were always given leadership in some Telangana districts. But no Telangana leader is ever given any such position in the Andhra areas! This is not just history. Even today, Andhra comrades are leading the party units and frontal organisations in Hyderabad, Rangareddy, and few other Telangana districts are just a few cases in point. These are some bitter facts that are hardly covered in the Andhra-biased media.
Finally, if at all there are any obstacles that impact on the state formation, then it is those Andhra settlers who had grabbed the government positions, violating the legal- local-category norms by producing bogus mulki/local certificates. Obviously, the issue of non-local recruitment (G.O.No. 610 is a case in point) in Telangana region continues to be hanging in the air, as long as the Telangana state is not formed. And of course, there are some political leaders, incidentally, they are not elected representatives of the Telangana people in any sense, (for, they are appointed by the party high commands), who are the main hurdles in the formation of Telangana state. The two invisible entities, bogus bureaucrats and political parasites seem to be responsible for manipulating the Telangana politicians and elected representatives for the past 50 years! This is the crux of the whole problem that delayed the process of state formation. Thus, it is time we realise how this problem is to be solved at once, if at all democratic demand of state formation is to be achieved in the days to come.
Dr.K.Vidyasagar, Action Committee for Telangana
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The History of Majlis ittehadul Muslimeen and its grip of the on the community remains strong, despite minor dents.
WITH A Member representing Hyderabad in the Lok Sabha, five members in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly, 40 corporators in Hyderabad and 100-plus members elected to various municipal bodies in Andhra Pradesh, the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen is one of the foremost representatives of the city’s Muslims and the most powerful Muslim party in India and one can see the partys strenghth if it goes to Hyderabad old city everywhere u look u can see MIM written on walls ,lightpoles and buildings leaving aside Green flags and posters of its Leadership and there small Offices . The Majlis has brought lot of development to the Old part of the city even after it is said it hasnt done anything by its opponents who are mostly Ex Majlis workers. The party has roots back to the days of the princely State of Hyderabad. It was founded by Bahadur Yar Jung in 1927 as a pro-Nizam party. The Majlis advocated the set up of a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India. The Razakars (volunteers), a Muslim paramilitary organization, was linked to the Majlis. In total up to 150 000 Razakar soldiers were mobilized to fight against the communists and for the independence of the Hyderabad State against Indian integration. After the integration of the Hyderabad state with India, the Majlis was banned in 1948. The Majlis president and Razakar leader Qasim Rizwi was jailed 1948-1957, and then deported to Pakistan
The Majlis was formed in 1927 “for educational and social uplift of Muslims”. But it articulated the position that “the ruler and throne (Nizam) are symbols of the political and cultural rights of the Muslim community… (and) this status must continue forever”.
The Majlis pitted itself against the Andhra Mahasabha and the communists who questioned the feudal order that sustained the Nizam’s rule. It also bitterly opposed the Arya Samaj, which gave social and cultural expression to the aspirations of the urban Hindu population in the Hyderabad State of those days.
By the mid-1940s, the Majlis had come to represent a remarkably aggressive and violent face of Muslim communal politics as it organised the razakars (volunteers) to defend the “independence” of this “Muslim” State from merger with the Indian Union.
According to historians, over 1,50,000 such `volunteers’ were organised by the Majlis for the Nizam State’s defence but they are remembered for unleashing unparalleled violence against the communists and all those who opposed the Nizam’s “go it alone” policy. It is estimated that during the height of the razakar `agitation’, over 30,000 people had taken shelter in the Secunderabad cantonment alone to protect themselves from these `volunteers’.
But the razakars could do little against the Indian Army and did not even put up a fight. Kasim Rizvi, the Majlis leader, was imprisoned and the organisation banned in 1948. Rizvi was released in 1957 on the undertaking that he would leave for Pakistan in 48 hours. Before he left though, Rizvi met some of the erstwhile activists of the Majlis and passed on the presidentship to Abdul Wahed Owaisi, a famous lawyer and an Islamic scholar from Jamia Nizamia who also was jailed for nearly 10 months after he took over the Majlis leadership as the then govt wanted to abolish the Majlis party but Owaisi refused to do so and was seen as a person who had financially supported the party when it was a bankrupt and weak one after the Police Action in Hyderabad State . In 1957 the Majlis was reorganized under the leadership of Maulana Abdul Wahid Owaisi (Fakhr-E-Millat)
Owaisi is credited with having “re-written” the Majlis constitution according to the provisions of the Indian Constitution and “the realities of Muslim minority in independent India”, and a Person who had fought a legal battle for years to winback its Headquarters Darrussalam according to a former journalist, Chander Srivastava. For the first decade-and-a-half after this “reinvention”, the Majlis remained, at best, a marginal player in Hyderabad politics and even though every election saw a rise in its vote share, it could not win more than one Assembly seat.
The 1970s saw an upswing in Majlis’ political fortunes. In 1969, it won back its party headquarters, Dar-us-Salaam — a sprawling 4.5-acre compound in the heart of the New City. It also won compensation which was used to set up an ITI on the premises and a women’s degree college in Nizamabad town. In 1976, Salahuddin Owaisi took over the presidentship of the Majlis after his father’s demise.
This started an important phase in the history of the Majlis as it continued expanding its educational institutions,Hospitals,Banks, including the first Muslim minority Engineering College and Medical College. Courses in MBA, MCA ,Nursing, Pharmacy and other professional degrees followed and now a daily newspaper known as Etemaad Daily. The 1970s were also a watershed in Majlis’ history as after a long period of 31 years, Hyderabad witnessed large-scale communal rioting in 1979. The Majlis came to the forefront in “defending” Muslim life and property Majlis workers could be seen at these moments defending the properties of Muslims in the wake of riots and these workers were very hard even for the police to control them even now it is a known fact that there are nearly about 2500 units of strong members who only act if there is a seirous threat to the Owaisi family and these members are under the direct orders of the Owaisi family which leads the Majlis party leaving aside thousands of workers and informers throughout the State and even outside the country far away till America and the Gulf countries.
Salahuddin Owaisi, also known as “Salar-e-Millat” (commander of the community), has repeatedly alleged in his speeches that the Indian state has “abandoned” the Muslims to their fate. Therefore, “Muslims should stand on their own feet, rather than look to the State for help'’, he argues.
This policy has been an unambiguous success in leveraging the Majlis today to its position of being practically the “sole spokesman” of the Muslims in Hyderabad and its environs.
Voting figures show this clearly. From 58,000 votes in the 1962 Lok Sabha elections for the Hyderabad seat, Majlis votes rose to 1,12,000 in 1980. The clear articulation of this “stand on one’s feet” policy in education and `protection’ during riots doubled its vote-share by 1984. Salahuddin Owaisi won the seat for the first time, polling 2.22 lakh votes. This vote-share doubled in the 1989 Lok Sabha elections to over four lakhs.
The Majlis has since continued its hold on the Hyderabad seat winning about five-and-a-half lakh votes each time.
Despite remarkable economic prosperity and negligible communal violence in the past decade, the hold of the Majlis on the Muslims of Hyderabad remains, despite minor dents. And despite widespread allegations of Majlis leaders having “made money”, most ordinary Muslims continue to support them because, as one bank executive put it “they represent our issues clearly and unambiguously'’. An old Historian Bakhtiyar khan says the Owaisi family was a rich family even before entering Politics and he says he had seen the late Majlis leader Abdul Wahed Owaisi in an American Buick car at a time when rarely cars were seen on Hyderabad Roads and the family had strong relations with the ersthwhile Nizams of Hyderabad and the Paighs even now the family is considered to be one of the richest familes in Hyderabad.
A university teacher says that the Majlis helped Muslims live with dignity and security at a time when they were under attack and even took the fear out of them after the Police action and adds that he has seen Majlis leaders in the front at times confronting with the Police and the Govt.
Asaduddin Owaisi, the articulate UK educated barrister son of Salahuddin Owaisi and Former leader of the Majlis’ Legislature party and now an MP himself who has travelled across the globe meeting world leaders and organizatons and even in war zones compares the Majlis to the Black Power movement of America.
The Majlis that emerged after 1957 is a completely different entity from its pre-independence edition, he says adding that comparisons with that bloody past are “misleading and mischievous”. “That Majlis was fighting for state power, while we have no such ambitions or illusions”.
He stoutly defends the need for “an independent political voice” for the minorities, which is willing to defend them and project their issues “firmly”.
“How can an independent articulation of minority interests and aspirations be termed communal,” he asks and contests any definition of democracy which questions the loyalty of minorities if they assert their independent political identity. “We are a threat not only to the BJP and Hindu communalism, but also to Muslim extremism,” Asaduddin claims. “By providing a legitimate political vent for Muslims to voice their aspirations and fears, we are preventing the rise of political extremism and religious obscurantism when the community is under unprecedented attack from Hindu communalists and the state'’. He can be seen in his speeches speaking against terrorism in the Country and says if the time arises Majlis will stand side by side in defending the Nation and Asaduddin Owaisi has recently visited Lebanon were a War took Place between Hezbollah and Israel and has even visited Muslims throughout India and represented there issues to the Government of India.
Post a Comment