The demand for separate state of Telengana has been around even prior to the incorporation of this region in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. This demand has been gaining support among the people of Telengana though the movement for the separate state has been going through ebbs and tides. It has also been gaining acceptance from the different political forces- both revolutionary organizations and ruling class parties, though the reasons for both are different.

The base of the demand is in the discrimination and backwardness faced by this region in the united state. Our Policy Resolution (5-18) states that “…These demands have their base in the neglect of these regions and the feeling among the people that their regions are being neglected as they are part of provinces dominated by people of other regions.” Our Party has been recognizing the discrimination against and neglect of these regions which serve as the base for the demand for separate province.

However, our party has not been supporting the demand for separate statehood for Telengana. We have been holding, “We have been supporting the demand for separate province only when it pertains to the people with distinct identity and not as a solution to the problem of uneven development.” On the above premise we supported demands for separate provinces of Jharkhand, Gorkhaland, Uttarakhand and Chhatisgarh but not those pertaining to Telengana and Vidarbha. Our Policy Resolution (5-18) states, “formation of separate province is not the solution of the problems of uneven development. …. Hence, on the questions of Telengana and Vidarbha, our approach is to wage struggle against backwardness and neglect by the rulers of the state on the issues of development and discrimination towards people of the region. We do not support the formation of separate state as it diverts form the real issues facing the people and will not solve even the problems on which it is based.”

Thus we recognized discrimination against and neglect of Telengana region in the state of Andhra Pradesh and the backwardness of the region resulting therefrom. However, we slipped into treating this as a problem of uneven development. Uneven development is a feature of this system itself and is present even in the same region, even in the same district of a region. Lumping “backwardness due to discrimination and neglect” and “uneven development”, we did not support the demand for separate state and concluded that it diverts form the real issues facing the people and went on to say that it “will not solve even the problems on which it is based.” We could say so because problem of uneven development could not be solved within this system. It is necessary to clearly comprehend theoretical basis of our earlier understanding on the issue.

Andhra Pradesh was constituted as a separate province of predominantly Telugu speaking people from the unity of such regions carved out of earlier Madras state and Nizam’s state of Hyderabad. Both Madras and Nizam’s state were composite multi-lingual states where Telugu speaking people felt suppression of their language and culture. In Nizam’s rule, use of Telugu language was suppressed and the people prosecuted for it. Thus a strong movement arose among Telugu speaking people for defense and promotion of their language and culture. This was the basis of demand for Vishalandhra which was rooted in the concrete conditions prevailing then. This movement was strong and supported by CPI. In fact, communists emerged as the champions of Vishalandhra.

In order to take the people of different regions along, Congress had adopted the principle of creation of linguistic states in 1936. However, after transfer of power in 1947, Congress rulers backtracked on this and linguistic states were formed only after the people’s movements forced their creation. However, with the formation of united Andhra Pradesh, the question of equitable distribution of power, positions and resources came up and gradually the problem of neglect and discrimination against Telengana region came up. Several agreements for the equitable distribution failed to solve the problem as the ruling elite was insincere towards solving it. They struck these agreements only to diffuse people’s resentment and agitation and not to implement them. These agreements reached from time to time, failed at the bedrock of anti-people rule of big bourgeois, big landlord classes. The agitation of 1969 for separate Telengana was very strong and widespread, but its ruling class leadership struck a compromise securing positions and privileges without progressing towards elimination of the neglect and discrimination which was the basis of the agitation. Over the decades this feeling continued to simmer and become widespread. Present movement though lacking the intensity of 1969, is widespread and protracted. The ‘development’ policies adopted by the state government, including utilization of water resources, did not ameliorate, rather aggravated this problem and the feeling of discrimination and neglect.

We should clear some important points related to the issue. Principle of linguistic state entails ‘one province, one language’ and not vice-versa i.e. ‘one language, one province’. This assumed the form of Vishalandhra, unity of all Telugu speaking people in one province, due to Telugu speaking regions coming out of mutli-lingual states. It was defense of their linguistic and cultural rights under attack in their respective provinces. Same was broadly true of Maharashtra. But in case of several other provinces where such oppression was not there, this was not affected, not was there any demand for the same. So formation of two provinces of people of same linguistic group does not militate against the principle of linguistic state as emerging provinces will not turn into multi-lingual states.

Here it is necessary to understand the interrelation between nationality and demand for formation of separate state. Nationality question is definitely relevant but not the sole criteria for the formation of states. In fact many such demands arose even where the people agitating for such demand did not have all attributes of a nationality. Moreover, a nation enjoys the right to self-determination including right to secession while no such right i.e. right to secession is applicable to people not constituting a separate nation. Formation of a separate state obviously deals with the powers granted to the provinces in the present Indian constitution and not the right of the nations to self-determination including secession. Historically also the demand for separate provinces arose both in cases where the people raising such a demand constituted a nation and where they did not.

In our Policy Resolution we laid emphasis on “distinct identity” of the people. In case of Telengana, while linguistic identity is same, nearly two hundred years of separate existence, one part in British India and one part under Nizam’s rule, had brought about certain distinctions in the social and cultural spheres of people’s lives. These distinctions also play their role in turning issues of discrimination and neglect of the region into people’s mobilization on the same.

Another issue is whether formation of separate state would address all issues or basic issues of the people. Ruling elite of the region who hope to monopolize power after formation of separate province, project separate statehood as the panacea for all the problems of people. The basic problems of the people, of land, of decent livelihood, or democratic rights etc. are linked to changing the present semi-feudal, semi-colonial society and can hence be solved only by victory of New Democratic Revolution with agrarian revolution as its axis. Separate statehood of Telengana under the present system will not achieve them. People’s Telengana or Democratic Telengana can only be achieved by overthrowing the rule of big bourgeois, big landlord classes. The experience of new states formed under the pressure of people’s movement illustrates this point clearly. Hence, the slogan of “Democratic Telengana” or “Praja Telengana” is likewise empty rhetoric and will only create illusions among the people and divert their struggles. There should no confusion that whether united or separate, exploitation and oppression by landlords, big bourgeoisie and MNCs will not go away and can not go away.

What separate state would achieve is that complaints of inequitable distribution of positions, power and resources is taken care of. The resultant feeling of discrimination of and neglect and people’s mobilization of that basis goes away. As a result a weapon of the ruling classes to misdirect the people’s agitation into channels of regional conflicts is taken away. The people’s democratic demand being fulfilled brings into stark reality of exploitation and oppression of ruling classes. It paves the way for further strengthening of revolutionary struggles. It is this taking away of diversionary tactics of ruling classes of fanning chauvinism of one variety or another that Communist Revolutionaries are interested in. In short, it is for this clearing the ground for intensification of revolutionary movement that we should take our stand.

In view of the increasingly widespread feeling among people of Telengana for separate province, and on the basis of theoretical and practical aspects given above, CC is of the opinion that we should support the demand for separate state of Telengana.

January 7-8, 2009                                                       Central Committee

                                                                            CPI(ML)-New Democracy