A much quoted adage is that history tends to repeat itself. While the veracity of such a statement in our complex world seems doubtful, every once in a while we do come across an example which reaffirms it.
The Partition of India was a painful event in our nation's history. A comparison to Telangana seems fallacious at first glance, but there are quite a few eerie parallels, as demonstrated herein:-
1) The call for a separate homeland- The first basic similarity, is that the partition was preceded by a 'Pakistan Movement'. The struggle for Telangana has been christened the Telangana movement.
2) The leader who switched sides- Jinnah was once a Congressman. He was forced out because he disagreed with Gandhi's methods of civil disobedience, resigning because he felt that the Congress had no space for Muslims. Further, he decided to go all out for Pakistan only after the Congress refused to form Coalitions with the League after the 1936 Elections. In a similar manner, K.C. Rao was once a member of the T.D.P. , a supporter of United Andhra. He resigned after being denied a Cabinet seat, claiming that there was no scope for people from Telangana to get influential posts in a United Andhra Pradesh.
3)The legacy of a lost empire- The major factor leading to Partition was that the Mughal Empire had once ruled over large swathes of India.The Muslim community that had once ruled felt insecure once it was out of power. Further the skills and education acquired under the Mughals became irrelevant under the British.The community began to lag behind. The Mughal Empire and its glory were cultural rallying points for the supporters of Pakistan
Likewise, the Telangana region was once part of the Hyderabad princely state, which acceded to the Union after the so called Police Action by India in 1948. The educated populace conducted business in Urdu, which, again became irrelevant after annexation. The peasants of the region had risen up, under the CPI, in a rebellion from 1946 to 1951. These peasants historically felt oppressed by the landlords who were mostly from Coastal Andhra. There was an alliance of interests between the Asafjahis who ruled politically and the Hindu landlords and merchants who ruled financially. It is a shadow of this same resentment that is seen today against people from coastal Andhra, who own a huge amount of property in Hyderabad. The differences in culture too, relate to the fact that they were once part of Hyderabad state, and not Madras province.
5)Excellent use of fear psychosis- In the late 1930s the Muslim League launched a massive campaign against the Congress, claiming that the Congress was discriminating against Muslims and Muslim culture. KCR uses the fact that Telangana region is economically backward as an instrument to rally people to the cause, talking of slavery and suppression by the people of Andhra.
6) Political vacuum and chaos- In 1939, World War 2 broke out. The Congress ministries resigned in protest. Later, when the Quit India movement was launched, the entire Congress leadership was jailed.
The Muslim League filled the political vacuum and launched a renewed struggle for Pakistan.
Y.S.R. , the popular leader of the Congress in A.P., died in a helicopter crash in 2009. In the ensuing chaos, the ruling Congress was weakened as YSR's son broke away from the party(He was later jailed on a corruption charge). The TRS took the chance to reiterate the Telangana demand in a major way.
7)Bone of contention- In the case of British India, Punjab and Bengal provinces were the provinces with nearly equal Hindu-Muslim populations. Ultimately they were partitioned, with the biggest cities-Lahore in Punjab and Calcutta in Bengal, being major points of contention, both communities having major stakes in them.Today Hyderabad is a major bone of contention, for very similar reasons.
8)Chaos in legislature- At the time of Partition, parties refused to cooperate with each other, leading to widespread chaos and even separate sessions for separate groups.Compare that to the chaos in the AP assembly, as well as the pepper spray incident in parliament.
What's different?- Ultimately the creation of Telangana is the bifurcation of a State. Both states will remain within the Union of India. Thus the mass migration that marked Partition will definitely not occur. Also, there thankfully has been no violence perpetrated by either of the groups on the other. However it remains to be seen how the people from the two new states will treat each other after division.
The Partition of India was a painful event in our nation's history. A comparison to Telangana seems fallacious at first glance, but there are quite a few eerie parallels, as demonstrated herein:-
1) The call for a separate homeland- The first basic similarity, is that the partition was preceded by a 'Pakistan Movement'. The struggle for Telangana has been christened the Telangana movement.
2) The leader who switched sides- Jinnah was once a Congressman. He was forced out because he disagreed with Gandhi's methods of civil disobedience, resigning because he felt that the Congress had no space for Muslims. Further, he decided to go all out for Pakistan only after the Congress refused to form Coalitions with the League after the 1936 Elections. In a similar manner, K.C. Rao was once a member of the T.D.P. , a supporter of United Andhra. He resigned after being denied a Cabinet seat, claiming that there was no scope for people from Telangana to get influential posts in a United Andhra Pradesh.
3)The legacy of a lost empire- The major factor leading to Partition was that the Mughal Empire had once ruled over large swathes of India.The Muslim community that had once ruled felt insecure once it was out of power. Further the skills and education acquired under the Mughals became irrelevant under the British.The community began to lag behind. The Mughal Empire and its glory were cultural rallying points for the supporters of Pakistan
Likewise, the Telangana region was once part of the Hyderabad princely state, which acceded to the Union after the so called Police Action by India in 1948. The educated populace conducted business in Urdu, which, again became irrelevant after annexation. The peasants of the region had risen up, under the CPI, in a rebellion from 1946 to 1951. These peasants historically felt oppressed by the landlords who were mostly from Coastal Andhra. There was an alliance of interests between the Asafjahis who ruled politically and the Hindu landlords and merchants who ruled financially. It is a shadow of this same resentment that is seen today against people from coastal Andhra, who own a huge amount of property in Hyderabad. The differences in culture too, relate to the fact that they were once part of Hyderabad state, and not Madras province.
4) The call to recognize cultural differences- Jinnah claimed in his Pakistan resolution that the Muslim and Hindu communities, which were so alien to each other that they could not even interdine, were in fact separate nations.Today the people of Telangana, too say that they have a different cultural heritage and history.There are vast differences in linguistic accent, culture, customs, food habits, festivals and even the deities they worship.
5)Excellent use of fear psychosis- In the late 1930s the Muslim League launched a massive campaign against the Congress, claiming that the Congress was discriminating against Muslims and Muslim culture. KCR uses the fact that Telangana region is economically backward as an instrument to rally people to the cause, talking of slavery and suppression by the people of Andhra.
6) Political vacuum and chaos- In 1939, World War 2 broke out. The Congress ministries resigned in protest. Later, when the Quit India movement was launched, the entire Congress leadership was jailed.
The Muslim League filled the political vacuum and launched a renewed struggle for Pakistan.
Y.S.R. , the popular leader of the Congress in A.P., died in a helicopter crash in 2009. In the ensuing chaos, the ruling Congress was weakened as YSR's son broke away from the party(He was later jailed on a corruption charge). The TRS took the chance to reiterate the Telangana demand in a major way.
7)Bone of contention- In the case of British India, Punjab and Bengal provinces were the provinces with nearly equal Hindu-Muslim populations. Ultimately they were partitioned, with the biggest cities-Lahore in Punjab and Calcutta in Bengal, being major points of contention, both communities having major stakes in them.Today Hyderabad is a major bone of contention, for very similar reasons.
8)Chaos in legislature- At the time of Partition, parties refused to cooperate with each other, leading to widespread chaos and even separate sessions for separate groups.Compare that to the chaos in the AP assembly, as well as the pepper spray incident in parliament.
What's different?- Ultimately the creation of Telangana is the bifurcation of a State. Both states will remain within the Union of India. Thus the mass migration that marked Partition will definitely not occur. Also, there thankfully has been no violence perpetrated by either of the groups on the other. However it remains to be seen how the people from the two new states will treat each other after division.
I don't agree with your point of 'lost empire.' Urdu was certainly imposed by the population by the Nizam, but he also firmly believed that Muslims alone should be in the bureaucracy and power structure, with the Hindu majority remaining its subjects. It was under the Nizam that the Hindu majority was weakest, being unable to speak Urdu clearly and even if they could, having no way to a better life. If anything, the end of the Nizam's rule was the coming of a more representative 'empire.'
ReplyDeleteI also disagree on the use of the word 'annexed.' India did fight a war with the Nizam, but ultimately he transferred his territory to the Union by means of the Instrument of Accession. An annexation would imply a forced seizure, where the Nizam was summarily removed and control was imposed unilaterally (on the lines of what happened in Sikkim decades later). That did not happen. And in any case, the war was not to 'annex' Hyderabad but to stop the Nizam from supporting groups in the Indian territory that were trying to break away.
Sorry for the late reply. Yes the word annexed was certainly out of place, although it was certainly not a voluntary or easy accession. I think the appropriate word would be 'forced to accede'. It's funny how most informal sources leave out the fact the the Instrument was actually signed.
DeleteI dont think that the entire Hindu majority was at a disadvantage. The landlords and merchants were mostly Reddys from coastal Andhra. The leader of the Razakars even said in a speech that the system where the Muslims ruled, and the Hindus made money was a system which worked well, and was best for both of them.
I've refined the point. It was poorly phrased. What I meant to point out was how the empires were used as cultural rallying points, as an example to prove a common identity
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete