Former minister Jairam Ramesh’s book ‘Old History, New Geography- Bifurcating Andhra Pradesh’ that was released recently is an insider’s account of what led to the carving up of one of the biggest states in South India that was not divided on either religious or linguistic lines.
In conversation with Deccan Chronicle, Ramesh recalls his role in preparing the legislation for the bifurcation and the events that followed the bifurcation.
In the opening chapter of his book, Ramesh, writes, “The wheel had turned a full circle in fifty-eight years,” referring to the merger of Andhra and Telugu-speaking areas in 1956, drawing us back to the agitations that marked the years thereafter, until the Andhra Pradesh-Telangana bifurcation and the turmoil it created in the Indian political landscape, with the how Congress failed disastrously to make the numbers work in its former bastion, following the bifurcation.
When asked if this was a black mark against his party, Ramesh, responds, “I would certainly not call it a black mark. As I have been at pains to describe in my book, there is a long historical context to bifurcation that cannot be ignored. There were also political factors with all parties, barring the CPI(M) clamouring for bifurcation.”
“In addition, there were social and economic reasons that kept the ‘Telangana sentiment’ alive for many years. There were weighty reasons in favour of bifurcation just as there were weighty reasons against it. It was not a simple, open and shut case.”
The bifurcation seemed rather unfair to the people of Andhra Pradesh with revenue generating capital, Hyderabad, staying put with Telangana.
We ask if it was a big blow to AP or both the states, and Ramesh, quickly replies, “Hyderabad had to be with Telangana. It did not make much sense declaring it as a UT. Its geographical position vis-a-vis Telangana and Andhra Pradesh was not the same as Chandigarh's position in relation to Punjab and Haryana. Hyderabad is at the very core of Telangana. Having said that let me also say that the development of undivided Andhra Pradesh was excessively Hyderabad-centric and bifurcation opens up vast new opportunities for places like Vizag, Guntur, Vijayawada, Tiruparti, Kurnool and others to take off, something that could not happen earlier because of the dominating position of Hyderabad.”
He also stressed: “The special category status for five years for Andhra Pradesh was announced by Dr. Manmohan Singh on February 20, 2014 as a way of compensating Andhra Pradesh for the loss of Hyderabad revenues.”
Such announcements steer the conversation towards electoral benefits the Congress enjoyed with this bifurcation. Ramesh says the move proved counter-productive.
“Not in the least did the bifurcation benefit Congress. It proved singularly disastrous. The Congress was wiped out in Andhra Pradesh and got just 26% of the popular vote in Telangana. It was a spectacular suicide, but in the long-run bifurcation will have positive economic and social impacts on both states.”
Speaking of the Congress, he is reminded of the communal politics in both the new states, and says, “Politics continues to be confrontational and all the three regional parties (TRS, TDP and YSRCP) are looking to keeping disputes alive or create new points of acrimony. ?Both the ruling parties indulge in competitive showmanship.”
As we near the end of the conversation, we cannot wrap up without asking Ramesh what he thinks of Rahul as the next face of Congress and what the future of Congress holds.
Without mincing many words, he concludes, “Rahul must take over soon and reinvent and reinvigorate the Congress. We cannot wait for anti-incumbency cycle to begin and only a gigantic collective endeavour will bring us back to the central position in Indian politics. Also, the future of India is bleak if the Congress is not strong. India needs a vibrant Congress, a reformed Congress, a restructured Congress, a Congress sensitive to changing aspirations, circumstances and challenges, a Congress leadership that is communicating with the people proactively.”
