![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOn Monday the 1st of June, India formed the new state of Telangana out of the still-existing state of Andhra Pradesh. The Telugu-speaking districts of the former princely state of Hyderabad turn out to have retained enough of a collective identity to merit the subdivision of a state. The Times of India has a potted history.
Alienation led to separatism and eventually a separate state.
Where will this lead? I'll note, from my perspective as an outsider, that the ability of the Indian government to divide existing states indicates Indian federalism is highly centralized indeed. Canada, to name a single example, lacks completely the ability to subdivide a federal unit without that unit's full consent.
Today is a new dawn in the history of the Indian Union. For the first time — outside the Hindi- and Bengali-speaking areas — two states speaking the same language have been created. Both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the two successor states to Andhra Pradesh, that come into existence on Monday, swear by Telugu.
This knocks down the basis on which the internal map of the Indian Union was redrawn in the first decade after Independence. With the linguistic basis of states — language being assumed as the indicator of a homogeneous culture — being challenged, there is scope for another exercise to redraw the internal map of India. Whether this will happen or not is a moot point but the question is why did this "Telugu state" break down. And what are the lessons for the future?
Although there was a demand for a composite Telugu state from before Independence, the Nehru-led government created Andhra Pradesh due to Congress's political interests. History has thus come full circle. In Andhra state (which was carved out of the Telugu speaking areas of then Madras state in 1953), the Congress was facing a tough electoral contest from the Communists.
So it was decided to merge Andhra with the Telugu speaking areas of the dominion of the deposed Nizam of Hyderabad. This would create a larger entity where the communists could be defeated.
[. . .]
The second unstated reason was that the Nehru government, chastened by the experience of the integration of Kashmir, did not want to leave the territories of the Nizam as they were. Therefore, while the Telugu-speaking areas went to Andhra Pradesh, the Marathi and Kannada speaking areas went to Bombay and Mysore provinces.
But the Congress chief ministers did little to promote rural empowerment or land reforms. The only chief minister who tried — Narasimha Rao — faced opposition from vested interests and was axed. Growing rural angst led to Maoism striking deep roots.
Alienation led to separatism and eventually a separate state.
Where will this lead? I'll note, from my perspective as an outsider, that the ability of the Indian government to divide existing states indicates Indian federalism is highly centralized indeed. Canada, to name a single example, lacks completely the ability to subdivide a federal unit without that unit's full consent.
