Monday, December 30, 2013

Connecting The Dots...

Lines are effective means to bring sense into a system. To join distinct points and form shapes, Underscore to emphasize a point, dashed ones to demarcate relationships, arrowed lines to give a sense of direction and superscripts to wipe out a word, a meaning. Defining wonders with a simple dash, they go further in their humble quest; to move mountains and pave ways; to create geographies and change history. As much as they can join, they divide as well –marking boundaries and separating nations. Dividing regions and creating new states; sometimes leading to peace, and sometimes disrupting it.

While more often than not, you see a distinct emotion associate with a divide, there are times when you find both – a sense of happiness for some, moments of sadness for others. The separation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh as a state is one such example.

Telangana - the “state” of “Telugu” speaking people from the pre-independence era. The region that never really accepted a merger with Rayalaseema and Seemandhra. Just as the “Marathi” speaking parts and “Kannada” speaking parts were merged with Maharashtra and Karnataka resp.; all the Telangana people wanted was to have their “own“ Telugu speaking region to be left alone as well. But that was not to be. On November 1st 1956 Andhra Pradesh was formed by merging Andhra State with Telangana.

Source: Wikipedia
The resistance for a merger might have had a basis back in the fifties, but the generations that form the pillars of the state today were born in united Andhra with little or no exposure to what might have transpired in the past. Despite the potential irrelevance in today’s context, it is worthy to note how an old sentiment has managed to implant itself through generations together without any earth shattering logic attached to it… Probably disappointment and discontent are such grave injuries that they don’t always heal; not even with time. Fifty years and some random uprisings later, the emotions are still strong; strong enough to fight; lethal enough to kill. 
After years of constant pressure and persevering revolt, the central government decided to draw the line; dividing the people and splitting the land they belong to. 

That one line has caused many a hunger strikes, given enough reason to adjourn the parliament proceedings and tear papers outside the assembly. A lot of emotions have surfaced; many that were buried for decades and others that took birth the day the line got drawn. The Seemandhra region has stood up in protest and their presence is not so minor that it could be ignored. Also what could not be ignored is the Sri Krishna report that gave a recommendation for a united Andhra after rounds and rounds of meetings with people from across the regions. Despite the widespread protest and well researched recommendations, the central government decided to go ahead with the division. There was no thought or planning that went into it; be it in terms of infrastructure usage, water distribution or anything else. Whether all three regions that makes up Andhra today (Telangana, Rayalaseema and Seemandhra) are mature and developed enough in terms of resources and services, employment, facilities and administration was not a matter of importance. All that was needed to be done was draw the line. 

There must have been a dozen odd reasons behind the move with vote banks probably topping the list, and regionalism following closely on the heels. While political gain does not make the eyelid bat, regionalism definitely makes the mind put its thinking cap on.

Divisions can be understood and accepted when there is a strong rationale to base them on. If there are enough dots for the line to connect, such that there are more unique characteristics than there are commonalities, a divide starts making sense. But when you see that racially, culturally as well as from a religious standpoint there are only similarities you realize that there really are no dots through which a line can be drawn. 

Culturally speaking both Telangana and the rest of Andhra represent the same beliefs and lifestyle, and follow similar customs. Telugu is the predominant language spoken, a sign of how different things stand today vis-à-vis the language-based divide that prevailed pre-Independence. Makes one wonder why anyone would want to tear a unified culture into two.

From a racial standpoint, they all began their journey from the same starting point. Just as most south Indians, they belong to the Dravidian race and share a common history. Nothing has changed so far, nor has any prospects to in the near future. Then why would one find difference amongst one’s own kin?

The most sensitive of all – Religion. Predominantly Hindus, with Muslims and Christians forming the minority, the philosophies are the same and so are the traditions and beliefs that form the basis of similarity in lifestyle across the regions. Keeping aside the Naxalite presence in some parts, the state is not known for any other extreme violence or communal act. Then why would anyone want to disrupt the harmony?

Finally, the people - The ones whose views and sentiment should count the most. When the Sri Krishna report was submitted it was clearly stated that a majority of the people do not want a division. Despite the dominant view from the people of the state, this decision was taken making the move seem more and more political in nature.

What destroys a perfectly reasonable brotherhood? One, which has coexisted and complemented each other? What makes “representatives” of one group to demand a different state only on the basis of geographical proximity and to harbor such negative thoughts?

No logical answer makes way to the mind; it does however seed a thought. If people who come from the same culture, religion and race cannot stay united what does it say about their sentiments towards the entire nation? Why should they have any sense of belonging to the country when they don’t with their own state? What if such feelings reside in the minds of communities across the rest of the country? What message does it give out to the rest of the nation and for that matter the world? Can Politics be such a significant motive that bifurcating a nation does not bear any importance? The thought races ahead and wonders, would it be a matter of time before such callous decisions would become the order of the day and disintegrate the largest democracy in the world? After all, Indian attitude have always been about peeping into the neighbour’s house and aping what the neighbour does. This move has already ignited demands for a divided Mahrashtra, West Bengal, Assam and Uttar Pradesh; Just another 25 odd states to go.The thought begins to grow.

It seems as if all people need to do is go on a hunger strike, raise their voices and swing a few lathis; the job gets done – A state gets divided. The geography of the nation changes for good and the lives and future of millions of individuals gets altered permanently. For no rhyme or reason, on the basis of political sentiment a decision gets taken. The impact it has on employment, infrastructure, financial funding, administration, pending projects and the economy remains unquestioned. Despite the absence of any logical dots, all that seems to be relevant is flicking the pen and drawing a line on the map… At what cost? Well, from all of this, one thing is crystal clear… that really does not matter. 

Top post on IndiBlogger.in, the community of Indian Bloggers

16 comments:

  1. Seeta, Very true. The cost is high. Unnecessary division.
    "distinct emotion associate with a divide, there are times when you find both – a sense of happiness for some, moments of sadness"
    Someone's pain is someone's happiness.
    I feel it's extra burden on the exchequer- extra salaries for extra officials & ministers. What a waste...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true.. and all in the name of politics.. :|

      Delete
  2. I just don't understand the logic for countries and states within countries. Guess most of it is an accident of history and result of vested interests. There are lot of questions for which I have not found answers - why a huge country like USA is able to stay together while a small country like Spain struggles. Why Germany, Austria and Switzerland need to separate countries when language and culture are so similar? Why do Bhutan and Nepal get to be separate countries while Sikkim and Kashmir get to be part of India to name a few.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vigorously nodding my head to each an every word written by you. There is basically no rational premise for any of these divisions or the lack of them. And you are right, how does the US manage to stay united and the rest fight over petty difference. Glad our thoughts resonate so much Fool :)

      Delete
  3. The answer lies in the history books. Clearly the only reason behind have boundaries and borders is for enjoying the divide and rule policy by the political parties. They say it is for upliftment of every part of the country which might not be possible with one central legislation, but I believe that it is a plain divide and rule policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, sure does seem that way doesnt it.. Thanks for stopping by Red :)

      Delete
  4. Though the way and the timing of the division is circumspect, from whatever I've read about the Telangana agitation, I don't think that others can take a call on what people in the region want. Even though the language is the same, Telangana Telugu has always been treated with despise as compared to the more elite other Telugu! Also, just like the case of Jharkhand, this region is richer in mineral wealth but has seen very little development as most of the entrepreneurs belong to the Seemandhra state. And agitation for Telangana has been ongoing for a really long time. That said, I think the entire premise of carving out states based on languages was wrong in the first place. It has promoted an insular attitude and regional jingoism. And come to think of it, the Hindi heartland has so many states and can do with some more to make administration more efficient. I am all for smaller states for better administration and more focus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are valid points Rachna. While I do agree the region has been neglected per se, I feel that can be attributed to ineffective governance and administration, does it really warranty a division? Esp. since a division can also do harm to areas such as Seemandhra which are not developed either...That I have questions about.. and true, the basis on which we carve out these boundaries are questionable beyond doubt... I think as long as effective governance can be provided, small or big will not make a difference. Coming from a small state myself,I know that the size really does not matter in case of inefficiencies and corruption... :|

      Delete
  5. There are no rational premises for any divisions Seeta - NONE! Not on the basis of religion, caste, creed, culture or whatever. All divisiveness comes from the mind of men - a seeking to find an external excuse for a sense of internal impotency OR an external reason to feel a sense of self-importance. AND when 'leaders' use this as a stepping stone to their own advancement we end up with schisms becoming chasms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True that Suresh... and what you said kind of is a good response to Fool's questions above :)

      Delete
  6. I think that no political party by itself should be able to take such major decisions without a majority across all parties. The deed once done is quite irreversible and as you said, it would have been better to let sleeping dogs lie. Economically think what it means to have a separate state and the cost it would incur to have a state government and separate machinery. It would have been much better to just divide the country by simple horizontal and vertical lines.
    Well written article !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. I think had one party not taken this abrupt decision, sentiments would not have surfaced as much as they did... If only politics cared about economics and welfare, this country would be the ideal place to live in... regardless of how many horizontal and vertical lines divided it...

      Delete
  7. Coalition governments have been such bane for India.. even a politician with good intentions has to bow down to demands from people with such vested and deplorable interests...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely.. sometimes I wonder if just a bi party system would work here..

      Delete
  8. You see we are not unique. The US has its Civil War before it united as one country and the Welsh, Scots and Irish visibly flinch if you call them English. The Basque seperatists of Spain the Southern Sudan struggle are all signs of the repression that people have felt from time to time. We divided our country on racist lines copying the UK's disastrous past. ( Remember the infamous and bloody IRA struggle in which millions of innocent people lost their lives ? ) India technically was a nation made in 1857, prior to which only kingdoms existed. History tells us that racist ethnic divisions are not as simple as drawing a line. Go back to the Marwar of the days of King Akbar and tell me that all Rajasthani's are Hindu or for that matter to the Goa before 1950 and tell me that Goans have only "Indian" blood or even for that matter how do you explain the Caucasian looks of a lot of Indians if not for the influence of the early Greeks in 326 BC ? So who is who ? And then the lines get blurred and in the kaleidoscope myriad colored dots remain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So very true PB! as far as the English are concerned.. i realized one thing after spending 5 weeks in the Queens world, we have adapted completely from them.. so finding similarities in our behaviors is a given if you ask me :)

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...