jump to navigation

Hyderabad and Telangana- Kingshuk Nag’s book on T జూలై 20, 2011

Posted by M Bharath Bhushan in 1969, Andhrapreneurship, Congress, Economy, heritage, Hyderabad, Identity, MIM, Mulki, Nizam, politics, regionalism, Review, Settler, students, TDP, Telangana, TRS, YSR.
Tags:
1 comment so far

Outlook July 25, 2011

REVIEW
Cleft Stick

Nag prefers to steer away from opinion and stick safely to facts. It’s a quick run-through of the issue for outsiders.

GITA RAMASWAMY

As a chronicle of the ongoing Telangana agitation, Kingshuk Nag’s Battleground Telangana has much to offer: well-written, missing no issue and, more important, unemotional. Nag supports the creation of a separate Telangana state, ridicules the idea of Hyderabad city as a union territory and drives home the point that the decision to do so should be taken now. He takes us through the unhappy creation of Andhra Pradesh from the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of erstwhile Madras State and Telangana, the resentment of the people of Telangana that led to the first agitation in 1969, the state through NTR, Chandrababu Naidu and Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, and the movement since 2009. Aware that Telangana is an emotive issue, Nag steers away from opinion and sticks safely to facts. It’s a quick run-through of the issue for outsiders.

Nag isn’t always objective; taking cheap swipes at the Nizam and Chandrasekhar Rao, missing the subtleties of a difficult issue.

But now the troubling issues. The Telangana movement, says Nag, arises from its cultural divergence and its heritage of revolt. But to say that the demand for a separate state is because of its militant history is hitting at the very basis for the demand. In a patriarchal marriage, the wife is right whenever she wants a divorce. As Nag himself explains, the 1956 merger was one forced on the people of Telangana. But how do you explain their long-standing grudges—unequal political power; lesser share of funds in every sector, including education, health, irrigation and civil supplies; diversion of its surplus funds into the general kitty; cultural dominance which has led to an erosion of their language, food habits and other cultural markers; the virtual take-over of Hyderabad, erasing its landscape? Is it because of vested interests and realpolitik of the coastal Andhra elite? Nag makes no attempt to examine this. (మరింత…)