A letter was written to Sri Sanjay Baru requesting him not to release the book ‘Refuting an Agitation’.Sri Baru did not oblige but read the letter verbatim while releasing the book on 23-01-2013 at New Delhi and made a speech in support of the book. Here is the video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B0pIMTIbAg8)
A rejoinder to his speech was sent to Sri Baru by e-mail in the following letter. But he has not chosen to reply to the letter.
Dear Sri Sanjay garu
Namasthe,
Thanks for reading my letter in the release of the book. I have read the book as you have suggested. There is some variation in a couple of the issues which related to history and geography of Telangana before merger, which are not very much germane to the merger of the state. However, they cannot be called as lies. The commentary by ‘Vishalanadhra’ on rest of the issues is a complete fabrication based on dubious arguments, statistics and statements. In fact they signally qualify to be called as the 101 lies of Parakala Prabhakar and his associates. Calling the issues as ‘lies and dubious arguments’ in the title of the book itself explains the minds of them , whose right of expression you have chosen so stoutly to defend, apart from their twisted intolerance of everything Telangana. But, leaving them alone, here I would like to invite your attention to your own observations in the speech on the release of the book.
1. You have asked to observe silence in memory of Telangana people who have laid down their lives for Telangana. You said it was sad and there was a definite anguish. Out of about 1700 there were at least some 1000 suicides. It might not be called apposite to say the reasons for such sacrifice of life as ‘lies and dubious arguments’.
2. You have said that you have agreed to release the book out of your personal regard to Parakala Prabhakar in the first place and read it later. You do not necessarily agree with all the content of the book.You also said that majority may not agree with it. Agreeing to release a book of such contentious content on personal grounds and defending it on the ground of freedom of expression, surprises us.Your Voltarian principle impresses us, but we feel that unfortunately it was totally misplaced here.
3. You have said that it is irrelevant if we have 25 or 50 states if we can’t say what we have to say. Telangana struggle is exactly of the same problem.Telangana people are not able to say what they want and are not getting what they ought to in the present State. They are gagged and spurned.
4. You have averred that as a person belonging to thinking class it is your responsibility to research, understand and analyse the facts. You said that you value the work of researchers like the author(s) of the book than of the agitationists. Without understanding and analyzing the facts presented by agitationists, coming to such conclusion may not be a right thinking. The demand and public opinion cannot be a different issue. They get manifested based on facts. Everything cannot be run on research and analysis alone.
5. You have agreed that there is scope to make research on ‘organized exploitation’ of Telangana and 10 theses for PhD degree can be written on that and want to continue the research. Is it not enough to have 5 1/2 decades struggle, about 1700 deaths and volumes of injustices on record; do we need to do this research to satisfy our thinking class, for another 5 decades?
6. You have said that SKC report was excellent. The conduct of some members of it was scandalous. The inaccuracies in it were numerous and onerous. Telangana Electricity JAC challenged the observations of power expert in the committee with a Rs.10 lakh wager. One of its options was a quixotic balkanization of Telangana to connect Hyderabad with Andhra. You yourself say that its 8th chapter is stupid and defaced. Your faith in such a skewered report and exhorting us to find solutions in it baffles us.
7. You have made a reference to many backward areas in the state and the rule of Telangana CMs. Telangana demand is in relation to the terms of reference to the merger of the state in 1956. It has nothing to do with other backward areas. Telangana CMs had ruled the state only for 6 years and 3 months out of 56 years and they were never allowed to complete even two years of their term. The majority of 175 against 119 always made the government virtually an Andhra government and never allowed the writ of Telangana people to run in it and never will in the united State.
8. You were talking of long term interests of Telugu people in a larger state. Telugu has totally been painted with Andhra. Even the state is obliquely referred to as Andhra state. Telangana people are living like second class citizens in the state despite a larger share of revenue in the state. What difference it makes to them whether it is a larger state with 42 MPs and a smaller state with 17 MPs, when they are fighting for the very existence of their ethos.
9. You were also saying that Hyderabad city has grown because of its public sector and graduated to become a metropolitan city and attracted IT, as if Hyderabad was not a developed city before merger. Other cities in India also have grown in course of time, attracted IT and a few of them are earning more IT income than Hyderabad. Your allegory that Hyderabad has grown because of the merger does not make any more sense than the Gujarati connection to erstwhile Bombay. Every city has its own dynamics based on its history and strategic geographical situation.
10. You have said that sentiment and political reality is different. You agree that, there is sentiment and anguish in Telangana. And opine that solution is not a separate state but development. But you also agree that the ‘organized exploitation’ is enough for 10 dissertations. We do not think that, with 175 v/s 119 equation, abrogation of so many safeguards, and agreements and brutal suppression of legitimate protest, that ever elusive development is possible with in the united state.
11. In the same coin, your sentiment of Telugu people living together, making Telangana people to live under andhras’ hegemony forever is undemocratic and worse than the political reality of demerger of the state. Heavens are not going to fall if the state is demerged. Telugu people can live in two different states with good cultural relations realizing their own ethos.
12. Your claim for the credentials of a bridge between the two regions sounds alright to us by virtue of your background. But, your misplaced support to the hecklers of Telangana angst does not make us feel that bridges are being protected here.
Therefore, we request you for more of your indulgence in pondering over the facts of our problem and understand our anguish. Then please use your good offices to help an amicable demerger of Telangana to pave way for harmonious co-existence of Telugu people in two different states.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/- J R Janumpalli
Chantilly VA – USA Dt. 01 – 27 – 2013