time to talk

by adopting the very legalistic line that the merger in 1956 was conditional and hence could be unilaterally revoked, the separatists have until now managed to avoid talking to other, to use a very chidambaramesque term, 'stakeholders' in the state. but they didn't stop talking across, over, around, everywhere about the so-called 'discrimination' they have had to face all through these years. and they didn't stop talking about how the merger itself was 'undemocratic' (a not very legalistic line to take), that the people of telangana had opposed it. who had opposed it? a few reactionary elements who had enjoyed high privileges in the feudal regime. and their cousins, perhaps. they've called the majority decision of the elected legislature in favour of the merger as 'undemocratic', which of course means 15 illegitimate legislatures and governments, in some of which they were a part, have presided over the state until now. some naive observers would sense hypocrisy there, but not the separatists. not their gang of 'ideologues' and 'intellectuals' who have worked or are working in jobs the illegitimate governments entrusted them with.

now, they'll have to talk. because they don't like talking to their fellow citizens, like in any democracy, but would rather prefer talking to delhi, they should like this idea of a committee appointed by delhi. i've called them inveterate courtiers earlier, because their genius lies in gossip, innuendo and rumour. and they've spread the disease across the land. i don't think they'd like to talk now, considering most of their talk until now has been mostly gossip, innuendo and rumour. now, they might have to talk facts, because the committee may rather listen to facts. perhaps, that's what they've been avoiding until now. a discussion of facts which might rip apart most of their claim. and all that they might be left with is the clever logic that it's their culture to talk around facts.


Kiran said...


I find something morally not so attractive about the 1956 agreement especially the way the separatists play it up - safeguards as an eternal entitlement of one entire region against another entire region. What is the moral cause to safeguard a velama dora from fertile karimnagar region from a mala or a madiga from say srikakulam ? I asked this simple and direct question in racchabanda forum and the separatists first reaction was infuriation that I dared to ask such a question - they labelled it a red herring and later as you described it in your post talked around it and over it by bringing up irrelevant analogies of climate safeguards, world trade safeguards etc. Unlike caste system there is no historic record of institutionalised repression of one entire region of seemandhra against another entire region - heck they were never much of a cohesive political units ever in the past.

The 1956 gentlemen's agreement was more of a goodwill gesture and a politician's promise rather than a legal contract. What I found to my total surprise is that most of the agreements(though not all) which were part of the gentlemen's agreement were actually implemented - yes they were, infact even I was so carried away by separatist propaganda and their massive presence on the net that I too thought NONE were implemented while infact most of them were up to 1969 when the safeguards were to elapse. As far as goodwill gestures and promises from politicians go 1956 agreement was a case with exceedingly high record of implementation. Even if some of them werent how can they talk about it as if it is an entitlement of an entire region - I mean morally

Reality said...

@ Kiran

I personally feel that the gentlemens agreement of 1956 was a agreement between 3 zamindars of andhra region and 3 doras of Telangana. It cannot be considered as a agreement between two regions.

Add to Technorati Favorites