Ramesh analyses the “waves” of reorganisation of states, mentioning particularly that the third wave (in 2000) for Bihar, MP and UP came from the Hindutva ideology.
Jairam Ramesh, the author of the book under review, an engineer from IIT Mumbai and a Master of Science from Carnegie Mellon University, cut short a doctoral program at MIT in an interdisciplinary technology policy programme to return home. Was it inevitable that he would land up among the “strange bedfellows” that Charles Dudley Warner had talked about? Or did this son of a professor of IIT Mumbai consciously choose to join politics?
Initially, he worked at the Bureau of Industrial Costs and Prices; from 1983-85 he was Officer on Special Duty (OSD) in the Advisory Board of Energy, and advisor to Dr. Abid Hussain, Member, Planning Commission (later Ambassador to the United States). Ramesh then held several positions with the Government and around this time he was Secretary, All India Congress Committee.It appears that he slid into Indian politics very smoothly.
For one who considers himself a product of the Nehruvian era he should have been the last person to be involved with the subdivision of a State on linguistic considerations. But, as he says, it was perhaps his destiny to be part of the Group of Ministers (GoM) entrusted with carving out of Telangana. He was conscious of the volumes written and debates undertaken over the wisdom in the language-based division of the country.Those who were against it would cite linguistic chauvinism and the menace of communalism – both stoked by local careerist politicians. The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 then came in – putting an end to all that debate, but it is still interesting to note the views of the stalwarts of the time. Dr Ambedkar,perhaps the most farsighted of them all, wrote in an article on April 23, 1953:“…there must be checks and balances to see that a communal majority does not abuse its power under the garb of a linguistic State.”
In a memorandum to the Linguistic Provinces Commission (1948) Dr Ambedkar had insisted that the official language of every province should be the same as the official language of the central government. Words of caution that were thrown to the winds. VK Krishna Menon, referring to the proposal for redefining the borders of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, asserted that it was backed by parties seeking “conquest of power” and warned that “we will Balkanise India if we further dismember the State instead of creating larger units.” In fact, Krishna Menon even suggested a Dakshin Pradesh (vis-à-vis Uttar Pradesh) comprising the present Tamil Nadu, Kerala and parts of Karnataka. Rajajireportedly considered linguistic provinces to be a “tribal idea”. All this philosophy was however lost in the whirlwind that followed the death of P. Sreeramulu, who undertook a fast unto death – and died. There are opinions today that say that the situation was badly handled. In fact, Ramesh quotes Nehru’s letter to Rajaji where Nehru refers to “some kind of fast …going on…” The exchange of correspondence (not bereft of sarcasm) between Nehru and Rajaji, as quoted by Ramesh, adds just the right level of piquancy to the background of the reorganisation theme.
With the death of Sreeramuluthe storm of linguistic States grew stronger. Mumbai perhaps has the reorganisation’s most poignant reminder erected in stone: Hutatma Chowk.105 martyrs to the cause of a state border. The martyr in Telengana and Andhra Pradesh was the Congress Party.
Also Read: Before we visit the Goddess by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni
Ramesh does not analyse the defeat but does attribute several causes to the revival of demand for Telengana. From Chandrababu Naidu (2008) supporting the creation of Telangana to his volte face, and his denial of a cabinet seat to K Chandrasekhara Rao (who then “became a dissident and used the Telangana issue to give himself political relevance”); from the sudden demise of Y.S. Rajasekhara Rao in the helicopter crash on 2nd September 2009 to the Union Home Minister’s statement on 9th December 2009; right up to February 2014, Ramesh records the details of all that transpired (including the pepper spray incident in Parliament). Discussions that covered the Political, Administrative, Financial, Legal and Territorial dimensions of the story.And it’s an eye-witness story worth reading only because the common man rarely gets to know of the closed-door machinations that lead and/or guide the powers that be. The author is at pains though, to explain that he completed his assigned task in the best manner possible. There were unexpected consequences – whether in the ground-level resentment or the annihilation of the Congress Party in Andhra-Telangana.
Also Read: Magician in the Desert: Story of Meru Cabs by Gaurav Rao
In the concluding chapter of the book, Ramesh analyses the “waves” of reorganisation of states, mentioning particularly that the third wave (in 2000) for Bihar, MP and UP came from the Hindutva ideology. The demand for Telangana too was not based on language, he says, but the book is not about the ‘why’ of Telangana; it’s the insider’s story of the ‘how’. The ‘why’ is too long and complexa tale of politics and egos, of aspirations and frustrations,of neglect and suicides.
Also Read: The Gospel of Yudas by K R Meera
While the book deals with a subject that is still very much alive in the minds of at least the Indian reader, and therefore holds one’s interest throughout its 200-odd pages, one point keeps nagging the reader: can a state by ‘bifurcated’? The Chambers Dictionary defines the adjective ‘bifurcate’ as ‘having two prongs or branches’ and the verb intransitiveas ‘to divide into two branches’. The Oxford Dictionary concurs. The use of the word bifurcate so as to mean the setting up two ‘branch-States’ would by any standards be politically explosive! The cover design though is intriguing:the empty hour-glass – stands like a meaningless symbol of time lost between the old history and the new geography.
