until delhi dies

one after another stooge gets out of the a.p.congress legislators meeting, beams at the cameras and tells you that they've unanimously decided that sonia gandhi should make the decision. any stray reporter making hesitant comments (hesitant because most reporters too seem to have come to accept this farce as natural and 'democratic'; some 'working' journalists' leaders have often been waxing eloquently on the wisdom of the 'high command' on talk shows) about discussions and debates and elections is brushed off with: we've discussed and passed a resolution, unanimously, that we shall abide by sonia gandhi's decision-- why isn't that democracy?'

why indeed. it's what they do at khap panchayats: let the elders decide. but the elders at khap panchayats are not elected, voted into wisdom. they just grow old and collect a lot of ignorance, hate and malice in their souls and ultimately qualify for wise panch-hood. but to become 'high command' in the congress, you don't even need to grow old.

that was a few days ago. now, nearly half the congress legislators in the state are in delhi, lobbying for posts in the new cabinet. like sons in a traditional hindu family, these folks will never grow into adults until their father, or delhi, dies.

listen

listen to a lobbyist talk casually, protectively about how 'She has to follow what she’s father says, no' (sic). that's how close she's to 'kani'. listen to a journalist promise a lobbyist that 'they promised me that Azad will speak to her'.

thanks harini, for posting all those transcripts and tapes.that's how power is done in delhi, that's how the all-knowing, most wise, all powerful 'high command' congressmen in a.p., keep talking about like they were talking of god's baap listens to the troubles of the aam aadmi through its network of naradas in the media and 'civil society' and niras in business and industry. and that's how kcr and other separatist politicians have to reach delhi. grovel before the right narada or nira. so they in turn would have 'long chats' with 'ghulams' or 'patels' and implore the 'high command' to listen to the 'democratic' demands of the people of telangana.

listen to them dishing out high offices now, listen to them carving up or not carving up the people tomorrow, as casually.

congress mp accuses congressmen of stoking riots in hyderabad

madhu yaskhi, congress mp from nizamabad, says congressmen from andhra-rayalaseema are behind the communal disturbances, which started last saturday, in the old city of hyderabad. why? the instigators, according to yaskhi, wish to displace the congress chief minister, and to portray the separatist agitation in a bad light. how did the riots start?

they started on saturday when some sections from a huge procession of hindu 'devotees' tried to 'replace green flags with saffron ones' while passing through muslim neighbourhoods. the sangh parivar was very obviously a part of whatever happened on saturday. that incident, and whatever other organized, as the police say, incidents of violence it has triggered since saturday: who, apart from the usual suspects like the parivar, thought up all the muky stratagems, and orchestrated the unfolding of all those incidents? are congressmen among the plotters and instigators?

since the late 70s, congressmen, of one faction or the other, have always needed riots in hyderabad to help them catch their 'high command's' attention. to displace this leader or that, and promote this dissident or that. this happened between 1978-82, when the city was rocked by long periods of riots and chief ministers had to be replaced every 18 months or so, and most notably in 1990 when y.s.rajashekhar reddy, a kind of permanent dissident then, reportedly played a big part in stoking riots so that chenna reddy, the chief minister, could be dislodged.

so both the hindu parties, the congress and the parivar could be involved. and as madhu yaskhi says, it could be congressmen from rayalaseema-andhra who are involved. and it could also be congressmen from telangana. muslims were attacked and their homes burnt down in a village in nizamabad a few weeks ago for refusing to join a separatists' rally. that village falls in yaskhi's own constituency: he doesn't seem to have too many ideas about who beat up the villagers and burnt their homes in his own constituency, but seems quite sure about what's happening in hyderabad.

the majlis, the most popular party in the old city of hyderabad, hasn't been too keen on the idea of a separate telangana. and muslims and the rest of the population in hyderabad haven't been half as enthusiastic as people in a few select districts in north telangana.

so, are the riots tied to the ongoing agitation for telangana? or to internal power struggles in the congress? if the choice is limited to those two options, i'd go for the second option, but i wouldn't rule out the first option totally. nobody knows for sure how the congress functions, or how congressmen function. madhu yaskhi himself is a very good illustration of how impossible it is to understand how the congress functions. a lawyer who worked with indian immigrants in the u.s., for nearly two decades, he suddenly landed the congress ticket for the nizamabad lok sabha constituency in the 2004 general elections, scoring over several very senior aspirants. how? well, he had money to spend, his detractors in the congress say.

the congress can't explain now why it took up the 'cause' of telangana in 1969, or why it dumped it in 1970. or why it took it up again 1999 and why it dumped it again in 2009. but madhu yaskhi jumps to definite conclusions, and makes definite accusations against his own partymen, barely two days after the disturbances started: could someone in the congress please explain what's happening, at least now? or ask its members to control their irresponsible urge to score points on every kind of occasion?

more trust in delhi than in your own people?

t.g.venkatesh, of the rayalaseema hakkula aikya vedika (roughly, united rayalaseema forum for rights) and a congress mla in the andhra pradesh assembly, writes:

The panel is not meant for just examining the demand of Telangana State but the issue of Samaikhyandhra too. But the Telangana Rashtra Samithi leaders and votaries of Telangana are hellbent on forming Telangana in the format of their choice, notwithstanding any amount of damage caused to other most backward areas like Rayalaseema and North Andhra.

The blind support by K Chandrasekhar Rao for Telangana reminds one of the proverbial evil intention of a cunning man over sharing a milch animal with his brother. The cunning man wanted the portion of the animal that gives milk and manure while offering the head portion that required continuous feeding to his innocent brother.

Mr Chandrasekhar Rao is well aware that 50 percent of the State income comes from Hyderabad, 20 percent from the rest of Telangana and 30 per cent from Andhra-Rayalaseema. Since Hyderabad is the commonwealth of Telugus, the income is utilised to take care of the needs of all 22 districts.

Chandrasekhar Rao wants to grab the creamy part and dump Rayalaseema and North Andhra to their fate. The people of the two most backward regions are frightened at the developments.

Their per capita income, employment potential, industrialisation, irrigation facilities, health and road infrastrucutre indices are among the lowest.The Telangana debate should begin with the fate of two orphans.

Even Mr Chandrasekhar Rao and his troupe should find a solution to the orphan areas before staking a claim to Telangana.

it's quite clear that neither the congress chief sonia gandhi, nor her cabal of shady advisors, had thought about the people of rayalaseema and north andhra on december 9th, 2009, when they announced that the process of formation of telangana state 'will be initiated'. it's also more clear that the political leaders of rayalaseema and north andhra had bothered even less about the people of those two regions.

even though the 'aikya vedika' was formed nearly half a decade ago, its leaders had mostly focussed on engaging in scoring points in televised 'which-region-is-more-backward' debates with the telangana separatists than in meaningful engagement with the people of the region to make them aware about the issue of the division of andhra pradesh and its implications for rayalaseema. they remained mostly a congress managed puppet outfit, whose sole purpose was to ensure that the trs didn't steal all the television time.

now, mr.venkatesh makes a poignant case for rayalaseema, and also north andhra. as he says, in many aspects, both regions are actually more backward than telangana. but what were you thinking mr.venkatesh, all through the last 5-6 years until december, 9, 2009, when you put so much more trust in delhi than in your own people?

ch.hanumantha rao's hurried case for telangana

the problem is ministers tend to be from certain constituencies, and people tend to be from mostly other constituencies. and over the years, ministers in delhi have shrunk to the size of their constituencies.

now mamata banerjee has acted as i had predicted. some observers in the press have rightly called it the 'great eastern railway budget'. they're doing politics, she says. and what were they expected to do? she was doing politics too.

Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday denied that the budget proposals for 2010-11 was West Bengal-centric and said that questions to that effect amounted to humiliating the State and “me.”

Addressing journalists after presenting the Railway budget, Ms. Banerjee charged that their repeated questions that she was doling out everything only to her native State in view of the coming elections were “politically motivated.”

“Leave that to the MPs. They are doing politics. But how can I satisfy 800 people (MPs)? I have not curtailed the rights of any State. Most of these are for other States.”

i am reminded of a portion of one of the oft-quoted (by telangani separatists) articles by ch.hanumantha rao, agricultural economist of much repute:

Post-liberalisation, the impact of state policies on the economy may turn out to be greater than before. The role of government in awarding contracts, sanctions for location of private sector projects and technical institutions, decisions about the number, type and location of special economic zones, land acquisition and compensation policies, various kinds of patronage extended to different enterprises and activities, etc could together make a greater impact on the economy than in the pre-liberalisation period. [emphasis mine]

i agree. i'd written about it earlier: the role of the state in the economy hasn't changed in the post-reforms period. in fact, in many ways it is stronger than during the 'socialist' age. so, shouldn't we be thinking about this over-sized role, about this growing centralization of economic power, urgently? shouldn't we worry more about the massive amounts of funds and favours now being handled by union ministers, from select geographic/cultural constituencies, 'doing politics'? especially in the light of all the gory scandals and scams that have featured ministers handling, or mishandling to be more precise, various 'economic' ministries in the last 19 years (sukhram, in the earliest post-reform period to mamata banerjee now)?

and what does ch.hanumantha rao offer as a solution to this problem of centralization of power? he ignores the centre, or the fount of the problem, and focusses on the states.

In general, the effect of such decisions would increase inequalities between different regions and income groups. This is because official patronage in bigger states tends to favour the regions and income groups already endowed with adequate resources, skills, power and influence. Clearly, backward regions run the risk of losing the race in bigger states in the post-liberalisation era.

how does the first para lead to the second? shouldn't there be something in the middle, something very crucial? like rethinking on the increasingly large role of official patronage, exercised by politicians 'doing politics', at the centre in favouring more developed states in the country over backward states? shouldn't he be thinking, first, of interstate disparities and the role of the centre in fostering and reinforcing them, before moving onto sub-regional differences within states?

looks like mr.hanumantha rao started with his recommendation (the case for a separate telangana) first, and added all the jumpy logic, or justification, later.

telangana: already behind bars

“The 30 lakh people, who visit their native places in Andhra for Sankranti, will not be allowed to return. The Andhra lobby should not lobby against our genuine agitation and against the aspirations of the people of Telangana,’’ speakers at the Telangana Vidyarthi Garjana said.

one particular student leader repeated that threat, a day after the meeting. there were many more such dire warnings issued at the meeting. the threats were addressed to ordinary office-goers, factory and white collar workers, small and big businessmen (and their families) from andhra and rayalaseema living and working in the city of hyderabad.

liberals sitting several flying hours away from hyderabad might see in the telangana movement the democratic aspirations of the people of the region. if they were ever made to suffer for a few hours the claustrophobic atmosphere, progressively built by the votaries of the movement in the last ten years, in universities, news rooms, courts, government offices, panchayats and even schools across the region that leaves no space for debate (leave alone disagreement) outside the subject of telangana, they'd realize that a day or two at the rss headquarters in nagpur or any of the several jungle hide-outs of the maoist party would be much more democratic. i hope that'd also make them pause and think: why are the most hardened supporters of telangana from either the sangh parivar or the maoist family?

today, somewhere on the net, i found this line:

If you can not express yourself you are already behind bars.

there are around 3.5 crore or more people in telangana (including hyderabad). even in the most sweeping landslides in any general elections in the region or elsewhere in the country, winners haven't been able to garner more than 50% of the polled vote (not all the votes, mind). that means 100% of the people voting 'yes' on any issue is a practical impossibility. then why does it seem like an impossible idea for anyone to hold a public meeting of even 10 people supporting a 'united andhra pradesh' in any place outside hyderabad in telangana? and since the last one month, even in hyderabad? assuming 100% of all telanganis support the idea of a separate state, given the fact that at least 30 lakh people of andhra origin live in hyderabad and neighbouring districts, is it stupid to think a few of those 30 lakh people would like the city to be a part of a united state? so, why don't we hear a single one of those voices, clearly, at a public forum? the threat of violence is very real. it hasn't spared politicians, film stars, businessmen: what chance do ordinary voices have of publicly airing their honest views?

most of the agitating students at the meeting at osmania university are from obc, dalit backgrounds. on other occasions, when they were fighting equally passionately for other causes like scholarships etc, or unfilled reserved jobs, there wasn't 1/10th as much support from the political classes (now, since the agitation started, mps and mlas from all parties visit them almost every day) or the media or the huge contingent of lawyers willing to rush to the high court or the state human rights commission or the top officials in the government to protect their right to assembly etc.

is it the democratic aspirations of the people, of the lower castes of telangana, that are shaping the current agitation or is it the ambitions of a new class of businessmen-contractor-politicians who see endless rent-seeking possibilities in a new state that's driving the effort to cleanse the region of all dissent and democracy?

separated

sad that the telugus should allow 'higher' powers to manage their affairs. that they should celebrate their subjugation and call it freedom. that they couldn't share water, jobs and now cities.

i wish all telugus would ponder over the question: if delhi 'gives', and you 'receive', what kind of power do you have over your lives? some democracy.

telangana for idiots, of idiots..

i wish i could've said telangana is the opium of the masses. but nobody knows for sure it is so- the more fortunate, in terms of education etc., are more vocal on it. and so vocal that they have managed to drown genuine debates on development in the state in the last three years or so. i think the congress likes that: the congress has thrived whenever the focus of the public in any region (read punjab, kashmir, northeast etc) got diverted to emotive issues. and the parivar likes emotive issues too. there is another thing that congress and the parivar both like: smaller states. the pseudo-logic that both together have developed runs like this: it is easier to administer smaller states. don't ask 'how many districts in chhattisgarh does the government of chhattisgarh actually administer?'

the truth is that both the congress and the parivar find it increasingly difficult to survive in large states. it's much easier to arrive at 'power sharing' arrangements in states that have around a hundred assembly seats (witness goa). it's ok even if you manage to win only 25 seats or so- you'll always find two three 'regional parties' and enough 'independents' 'like-minded' enough to share power with you. and at the centre: all dissenting voices would have no choice but to cling to one or the other national alliance, headed of course by the congress or the parivar.

and don't mention federalism and other nonsense: what does it matter if to keep all indians together you've to break up linguistic minorities?