Contrary theories
November 1st, 2010
By Kancha Ilaiah
With the Srikrishna panel set to submit its report before the end of
December, the specific issue of Telangana and the broader issue of
smaller states have once again come to the limelight.
Very few people know that there are two distinct and contrary theories
of small states in India. The first theory is that of Dr B.R.
Ambedkar. He proposed that theory in the mid-1930s.
But his concrete proposal for the formation of small states and his
opposition to the model of linguistic states was expressed in 1953,
that too in the context of the formation of the Telugu linguistic
state.
His opposition to the formation of big linguistic states was rooted in
his concern for protecting the interests of dalit-bahujan masses. His
considered view was formulated in an article that he wrote in the
Times of India on April 23, 1953.
He said, "In a linguistic state what would remain for the smaller
communities (he meant SCs and STs) to look to? Can they hope to be
elected to the legislature? Can they hope to maintain a place in the
state service? Can they expect any attention to their economic
betterment? In these circumstances, the creation of a linguistic state
means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority."
While specifically referring to the formation of Andhra Pradesh, he
says, "Take Andhra — there are two or three major communities spread
over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddys or the Kammas and
the Kapus. They hold all the land, all the offices, all the business…"
In other words, Dr Ambedkar was arguing that in any big linguistic
state the dalit-bahujan communities cannot wield considerable
influence. He was of the view that a weak village, a weak state and a
very strong Centre with a secular ideology would provide enough ground
for annihilation of caste, at least over a period of time.
Thus, he was for a quasi-federal state with major powers vested with
the Central government, which could not be controlled by feudal,
casteist forces that operate at the village, district and state
levels.
The hegemonic and progressive role of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal
Nehru at the national level must have weighed on his mind, as against
that of feudal, casteist and conservative upper caste leadership at
the state level.
Even in the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr Ambedkar pleaded for a
strong Centre and weaker states for annihilation of caste and
dismantling of feudal economy and backward cultural structures in the
rural areas.
Most of the dalit-bahujan activists in the present Telangana movement
keep referring to this theory of Dr Ambedkar, for the possible power
reversal in the small Telangana state. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister
Mayawati also proposed to divide UP into three small states based on
Dr Ambedkar's theory.
But what Dr Ambedkar did not anticipate was the rise of the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) and its allied forces and their coming to power at
the Centre.
When Dr Ambedkar formulated his views he was part of the Nehru Cabinet
and major leaders of that time did not anticipate that the then
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or Hindu Mahasabha could form a party like
the Jan Sangh and later the BJP. They much less anticipated that they
could come to power with a clear anti-Muslim, anti-Christian and also
anti-Pakistan agenda.
By the mid-1990s these forces came to power. Through the demolition of
the Babri Masjid and the creation of a communal divide, they undercut
the Mandalisation process. The Gujarat mass pogrom and the Kargil War
were worked out when they were in power and that gave rise to a new
ambition of teaching a lesson to Pakistan and Bangladesh and moving
towards achieving the goal of "Akhand Bharat".
The BJP too longed for a stronger Centre. With that goal in mind in
the mid-90s, it proposed a theory of small states and almost a unitary
Centre.
For them such a centralised state was needed in order to resolve the
Kashmir problem with much more focused military action.
With this in mind, they manufactured a demand to separate Jammu from
Kashmir. To weaken the Communists in West Bengal they wanted to
separate Gorkhaland from West Bengal. Even the division of Tamil Nadu
into two states was on their cards to break the Dravidian unity. Of
course, the Telangana and Vidarbha demands also fit into their larger
scheme.
But they miserably failed in the quick implementation of their agenda
of dismantling the existing federal structure and could only carve out
Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttaranchal because of the opposition
from the Telugu Desam and the Shiv Sena.
Though there appears to be a marginal difference between Dr Ambedkar's
quasi-federal state and the BJP's quasi-unitary state, there is
fundamental difference in their socio-political goals.
The BJP and its sister organisations wanted a strong feudal Hindu
village, weak states and very strong Centre to achieve their vision of
Akhand Bharat by bringing back Pakistan and Bangladesh into their
fold.
Meanwhile, they would have created enough fear psychosis among
minorities to the point of scaring them to not go to polling booths
within the country. They already have the experience of the village
and taluka level feudal lords not allowing dalits and tribals to vote.
In the long run, they wanted to "Hindu-ise" dalits-tribals, turn the
OBCs into a muscle power force to implement their Hindutva agenda. If
the BJP was to come to power on its own nobody would have stopped it
from pushing that agenda to a logical end.
Now that the Telangana issue has come to a peak and since the Congress
has committed itself to bifurcation, the BJP wants to concentrate on
this state.
The Telangana Rashtra Samiti, with its semi-Shiv Sena ideology and
organistional structure run by a family, would be a good ally for
this. If the Telangana state is formed under its leadership, the
Ambedkar theory will be implemented upside down. The landlords and
saffron brigade will rule the roost. Let us keep our fingers crossed.
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment