Telangana: A struggle or A Movement? By Prakash Kona 18 October, 2011 Countercurrents.

org Some theoretical issues need to be addressed in the context of a demand for a separate Telangana. More importantly it would make sense to speak of the struggle itself. I refuse to use the word movement at this point which in an old-fashioned way I associate with the masses or common people who demand serious changes in the economy and social order. A struggle can happen anywhere but a movement happens on the streets. Struggles can be deeply feudal, inegalitarian and exclusive. A movement by definition could never be that. A struggle can begin anywhere but a movement has to begin in those spaces on the lower rungs of the ladder. There are certainly examples of identity-based movements struggling for visibility as in the case of the Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and the 60s in the United States. They however also have economic goals packed into the social agenda. Both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X two eminent Black leaders time and again spoke of the poor and the reality of exploitation. In its quest for identity, the Telangana struggle continues to be a struggle refusing to become a movement that could attract wider sections of people rather than disenchanted groups such as students and government employees. The mantra they chant is strikingly simple Telangana for the Telanganas! What makes the mantra dangerously simplistic is that it turns everything into black and white. The Andhras are homogenized and become the bad guys while the Telanganas uniformly are the good guys. Ironically in most Telugu films it is Andhra heroes whove consistently played the role of the good guys while often showing the Telanganas in a poor light. The identity argument is necessary for the Telanganas to take pride in their complex cultural history which has brought Hindus and Muslims together as

seen in varieties of dialects that dominate the region giving it a unique character. That touch of Urdu with which the Telanganas speak Telugu has an aesthetic value which must be celebrated for its diversity rather than the standardized Telugu spoken on Television which is insipid, without a local character and with casteist and classist overtones. That Telangana identity and cultural history have been undermined in the hands of Andhra film makers and the media there is no doubt about that. This might be an indication of how Andhras wrongly feel about the superiority of their Telugu as opposed to that spoken by the Telanganas. No one likes to be shown as a joker or a villain. The Telanganas have every right to feel angry and resentful of how they are portrayed in Telugu movies. What I find problematic is the homogenization of the Seemandhra peoples. When Telangana leaders speak on TV you get the impression that Telangana is a region whose people are impoverished while Seemandhra is rich and prosperous the way you would imagine a western nation to be. There is no indication that there could be poor and exploited people in Seemandhra as well whose concerns need to be urgently addressed. This image of a Telangana that is being looted by Seemandhra peoples is a stereotype and a myth and unfortunately even educated Telangana people are not averse to making nonfactual statements along these lines. The rhetoric employed by some of the Telangana leaders cutting across party lines is anti-national to say the least. There is a nostalgia for a golden past that never existed even the despotic Nizam of Hyderabad is these days a hero. It just makes you realize how histories are invented to suit particular needs of a particular group of people in a way that is both imaginary and simultaneously historic by virtue of the fact that they play a role in guiding public consciousness either for the good or the bad. This golden past in turn is connected to a concocted utopia that exists in the future where you need to get rid of all the others and your problems are automatically solved. A similar argument was used by the Nazis in Germany against the evil Jews back in the 30s and the 40s. Therefore such arguments have a tinge of the fascist mentality attached to them.

This exaggerated sense of Seemandhra villainy prevents the struggle from evolving into a movement. Ultimately common people whether Telangana or Andhra they are more aware than their so-called leaders and spokespersons of what equality means in practice. A struggle that promises equality will have an inclusive character. Equality is rooted in social justice especially along lines of gender which is the true essence of modernity. This sense of modernity is conspicuous by its absence in the Telangana struggle. Owing to its feudal and non-inclusive character the Telangana struggle has failed to translate into the politics of a movement. Women continue to be relegated to the back seat. Their space in the struggle is minimal. As much as I appreciate the fact that Bathukamma is an important cultural event I dont think it should be treated as an embodiment of Telangana womanhood. It represents the serial-watching homemakers whose lives revolve around the family. Modernity is where women are independent, educated, become a part of the workforce and contribute to the life of a nation. More importantly women become equal partners in the running of the family and not victims of an unjust, male-dominated system. When it comes to the woman question, the Telangana struggle more and more looks like old wine in new bottles. Movements are idealistic in a way that struggles need not be. The Telangana struggle in its current avatar is a product of a liberalized and globalizing India. At the end of the day the Telangana identity is connected to acquiring the fruits of economic development made possible primarily through investments from Andhra land-owning classes combined with labor from across the state of Andhra Pradesh not to mention India itself. While the radical changes in the areas of telecommunications make it possible to reach out to a wider audience, movements dont take place before the camera or on the internet. They take place on streets. Remember the Tahrir Square in Cairo. People actually met there to bring about an uprising. They were not paid, persuaded or pushed to be there by their leaders. They made a choice to protest and bring about change. Unfortunately owing to its lack of an idealistic and patriotic leadership those very tools of globalization the media and the internet which gave a certain shape to the Telangana struggle will also arrest the

possibility of it ever turning into a movement that can seriously challenge Andhra domination. The Telangana poor whatever their feelings maybe are not unaware of the difference between a struggle and a movement. They are also aware of the contradictions generated by caste groups and vested interests that have their own reasons for wanting a separate Telangana. Says Gandhi in a speech at the point when he is ready to embark on freedom struggle: Here, we make speeches for each other and those English liberal magazines may grant us a few lines. But the people of India are untouched. Their politics are confined to bread and salt. Illiterate they may be, but they're not blind. They see no reason to give their loyalty to rich and powerful men who simply want to take over the role of the British in the name of freedom. This is my point: the working poor whether they are landless laborers, urban slum dwellers or autorickshaw drivers are untouched and see no reason to give their loyalty to rich and powerful Telangana men who merely want to be in the shoes of the Andhra capitalists. The politics of the poor is about survival and a decent life. As Gandhi says: Illiterate they may be, but they're not blind. They know only too well what the agenda of the leaders and the caste groups is all about. All is not lost though. The Telangana that I would consciously choose to support is one that gives the poorest of the poor and marginal people a fair deal in a separate state. At the same time it should have a national and cosmopolitan character. An Indian can live and make a living anywhere from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. The argument of Telangana air, water and soil belonging exclusively to Telangana people is alright to make a point but one that cannot be taken too seriously. The unity and integrity of India as a nation transcends every other concern except the demands made by social and political justice. If the Telangana struggle really must turn into a movement it must address those demands before getting lost in the morass of identity politics.

Prakash Kona is Associate Professor, Department of English Literature, English and Foreign Languages University