An argument against Andhra’s claim over Hyderabad – Prof.Madabhushi Sridhar
The history and geography of three capital cities – Bombay, Madras and Chandigarh deny the claim of Andhras over Hyderabad.
The mortgagee cannot claim ownership of
land because he built permanent structures on the land. Similarly the
investors of different region cannot claim that city to be their own
because of their structures. Once a tenant, always a tenant.
This is what Ambedkar said: “There is no
foundation for the statement that the trade and industry of Bombay was
built up by Gujarathis, the claim of mortgagor to his land cannot be
defeated by the mortgagee on the ground that the mortgagee has built up
permanent structures on the land. The Gujarathis assuming they have
built up the trade and industry of Bombay are in no better position than
a mortgagee is. But who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay
seems to me quite irrelevant to the decision of the issue whether Bombay
should or should not be included in Maharashtra. This argument based on
monopoly of trade and industry is really a political argument. It means
that the owners may rule the workers but the workers must not be
allowed to rule the owners”.
The history and geography proves that
Hyderabad is integral part of Telangana and thus should remain its
capital. Hyderabad was capital of Hyderabad state for more than four
hundred years, and a short span between 1956 and 2012 cannot lead to its
deletion from Telangana for any other reason. The prolonged residence
or business investments by some others cannot entitle them to claim the
city as their own.
Bombay for Marathas
The architect of Indian Constitution Dr B
R Ambedkar said in a memorandum submitted to Linguistic States
Commission in 1948, which is highly relevant in Telangana context
especially when Coastal Andhra Businessmen were laying claim for
Hyderabad. “…homogeneity of a people depends upon their having a belief
in a common origin, in the possession of a common language and
literature, in their pride in a common historic tradition, community of
social customs, etc. is a proposition which no student of sociology can
dispute. The absence of a social homogeneity in a State creates a
dangerous situation especially where such a State is raised on a
democratic structure. History shows that democracy cannot work in a
State where the population is not homogeneous. In a heterogeneous
population divided into groups which are hostile and anti-social towards
one another the working of democracy is bound to give rise to cases of
discrimination, neglect, partiality, suppression of the interests of one
group at the hands of another group which happens to capture political
power”.
Now the statements by
businessmen-cum-politicians including some MPs in AP reflect the absence
of homogeneity and their lack of concern for the people residing in
this part of the state also indicating lack of integrity in spite of
‘living together’ for 46 years. It is venomous speech, if not hate
speech against Telangana. It is immoral, anti-social and unbecoming of a
leader. They need to understand Ambedkar and stop being hostile to
Telangana, wherein they are making a living and huge profits at the cost
of people in Telangana.
Ambedkar’s historic statements came in
the context of Gujarathi Businessmen demanding Bombay as ‘their’ capital
at the cost of Maharastrians before division of Bombay. As happening in
Hyderabad now, a handful of investors were trying to hijack capital
city from the its legitimate owners. Media highlighted proceedings of a
small meeting held at Indian Merchants Centre by Gujarati-speaking
merchants and industrialists in Bombay. Times of India, then also wrote
an editorial in support of traders demand. As ‘discovered’ by Justice
Srikrishna Committee, the media is mostly owned by rich politicians from
Coastal districts and they air the anti-Telangana talk incessantly.
They project interests of few merchants as more important than the
interests of four crores of people.
Dr. Ambedkar brought out the
unreasonableness of arguments of Gujarathi merchants demanding Bombay:
(1) Bombay was never a part of Maharashtra, (2) Bombay was never a part
of the Maratha Empire, (3) The Marathi-speaking people do not form a
majority of the population of the City of Bombay (4) Gujarathis have
been old residents of Bombay (5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast areas
outside Maharashtra. Therefore, they said, Bombay cannot be claimed by
Maharashtra. It belongs to the whole of India (6) It is the Gujarathi
speaking people of Bombay who have built up the trade and industry of
Bombay. The Maharashtrians have been only clerks and coolies. It would
be wrong to place the owners of trade and industry under the political
dominance of the working classes who form the bulk of Maharashtrians,
(7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because it
wants to live on the surplus of Bombay (8) A multi-lingual State is
better. It is not so fatal to the liberty of smaller people and (9)
Regrouping of Provinces should be on rational lines and not on national
lines.
The Seemandhra businessmen claiming
Hyderabad, raise almost similar arguments. But this city was part of
Hyderabad state and of Hyderabad empire, Telangana’s were in majority,
in spite of flooding of migrants. The investors of Andhra were claiming
that they built Hyderabad, conveniently not talking about its 400 years
of glory. In fact the Andhra rulers left old and historic city to the
religious fundamentalist party having alliance with them just for their
vote bank, Conceding demands of political ally, they criminally
neglected the development of old city, instead developed huge colonies
elsewhere. They have also resorted to inflame fires of communal
disharmony in old city just to dislodge a Telangana Chief Minister.
Ambedkar strongly campaigned for Bombay
for Marathas, by history and geography, he said: Geography has made
Bombay part of Maharashtra. Let those who want to challenge the fact of
nature do so. Gujarathis declared that even after five thousand years
Marathis will not get Bombay, Andhra leaders are also say that Telangana
would never come.
To a question that Marathas were in
minority and hence cannot claim Bombay, Ambedkar said, in British India,
people were free to move and settle anywhere. If Marathas reduced to
minority it is not their fault and that will not disentitle to own
Bombay.
While Gujarathis claimed to have built
industries in Bombay, Andhras claim that they built Hyderabad itself, as
if it did not exist earlier. The pluralist society with Marathi,
Kannada, Telugu, Urdu speaking persons flourished together in harmony.
Until the ruling parties started cheap tactics of inciting communal
riots to dislodge a chief minister belonging to Telangana, there was no
bloodletting old city. Even today the rulers liaison with Majlis and
concede all their unreasonable demands except the development of old
city. They developed colonies for Andhras and then they concentrated
development only there. The so called jala yajnam has
facilitated contractors to spend their advance amounts in real estate
leading to artificial boom in land rates that ruined the life and
culture of the farmers and other people in Rangareddy.
Acting against recommendation of State
Reorganization Commission, Maharastra without Bombay was created. In
making Bombay a union territory for four years, Gujarathi lobby was
successful, but the agitation of Marathis which took the toll of 80
people led to conversion of Bombay into capital city of Maharastra on
May 1, 1960. Though the investor lobby could deny Marathas their city,
it was only for a short while.
The SRC preferred multilingual states rather than linguistic state which help minorities to survive.
Madras for Tamils
Andhras made unreasonable claims twice
over capitals – once for Madras and secondly for Hyderabad now. It was
stated that the Telugu Kings granted land for Fort St George with a
condition that Chennapatnam should flourish as Telugu city for ever. The
official centre of the settlement founded in 1639 as designated as Fort
St Geroge. While Chennapatnam was predominantly Telugu area, Madras
Patnam expanded on the otherside. Two – Chennapatnam and Madras Patnam
together came to be called as Madras. Andhras wanted north Madras as
capital of Andhra and South Madras as capital of Tamil province, as per
Mr. K V Narayana Rao in his article ‘The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh”.
Story of Chandigarh
Andhras quote Chandigarh to support
their claim for Hyderabad. Chandigarh has only geographical continuity
for being a common capital. It does not have any history to be claimed
as unique capital of Punjab or Haryana exclusively. After Punjab was
partitioned between Pakistan and India, there was a need to build new
capital as India lost Lahore to Pakistan. A new and planned city was
undertaken at a strategic location reflecting nation’s modern outlook.
On 1 November 1966, the newly formed state of Haryana was carved out of
eastern portion of the Punjab, in order to create Haryana as a majority
Hindi speaking state, while the western portion of Punjab retained a
mostly Punjabi-speaking majority. However, the city of Chandigarh was
both on the linguistic and physical border, and was thus created into a
union territory to serve as capital of both these states. Recently there
are claims and counter claims for Chandigarh as exclusive capital by
both Punjab and Haryana. Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal
raked up the Chandigarh issue in CM’s conference to which Haryana CM
reciprocated strongly. This shows being a joint capital of two states
with a status of Union Territory is no solution to the contentious
problem. The Punjab Governor remains Administrator of Chandigarh on
behalf of the Centre while Punjab and Haryana having stakes at 60:40
ratio. The secretariats and assemblies ofboth the states and
headquarters of most departments are located in Chandigarh itself. They
have a common Punjab and Haryana High Court. Now the Haryana is
demanding separate Haryana High Court within Chandigarh. This shows how
Chandigarh remains problematic as common capital.
Under any circumstances Hyderabad cannot
be the capital of Andhra and it is inevitable to remain a capital of
Telangana. But handing over the control of Hyderabad to Center is
neither proper nor democratic. Hyderabad is as much most unwieldy and
traffic reached its uncontrollable levels. If it is made common capital
for two (or three states) with a UT status it has to have three
headquarters which compound the problems and complicate living.
The history of Bombay and Madras laid
strong foundation to deny the Andhras’ claim over Hyderabad and
Chandigarh example does not justify their demand for Telangana Capital.
Chandigarh could be common capital because of its geographical congruity
which Hyderabad is lacking. Andhras or Seema leaders will not be
reasonable if they claim Hyderabad for historical and geographical
reasons and making it common capital will not add any value to Andhras
except satisfying their ego of denying Telangana their own capital
partly or temporarily.
Posts
