Leadership Crisis in India - Continues Again

In my last post I had said that we shall look into why the leadership in the country has become what it is and how that impacts on democracy here. The last few days have provided enough instances to make my case. Due to the ongoing situation, my argument for the nth time emanates out of the Telangana tangle that goes unresolved and threatens to destroy the Osmania University once and for all. It is well known that the campus has become some sort of a hostile zone with pitched battles breaking out every once in a while. There are almost as many policemen on campus as there are students. A concerned citizen went to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh asking for the police to be removed. A Single Judge bench obliged. The Judge talked about how Telangana is not Pakistan and how the Osmania University entrances should not be barricaded like the Wagah border. I am a little amused by the choice of words of the esteemed Judge. Osmania University is not Telangana so the parallel is quite ludicrous. To liken the entrance to the Wagah border is confounding of an already confused situation. I am not questioning the learned Judge's judgement but simply drawing attention to a possible state of mind of all concerned about the Telangana issue and the State of Andhra Pradesh. But this is only an aside. What I thought was slightly amusing. The real issue is not the good Judge's vocabulary but the part that the judiciary plays in the politics and administration of the country.

This is the time that I shall have to bother you with some boring details about the constitution of India and the position of the judiciary accorded by it. There are three organs of government. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Baron de Montesquieu, a French man of great repute, propounded a theory of what he called Separation of Powers and what others call a system of checks and balances, where in order to protect the rights of common citizens, the powers of one organ of government are checked by the powers of the other two. The legislature is the law making body, the executive is the law implementing body and the judiciary is the law adjudicating body. This is a simplification of things but I do not intend to convert this post into a lecture on government. The interesting thing is that in countries like the United States of America all personnel into all three organs of government are elected (though some offices in the judiciary are not). Basically all three organs were supposed to create and protect the rule of law, where neither individual or office is more powerful than the law of the land. Rule of Law very clearly stipulates that no citizen of a country is above the law and therefore the expression the Rule of Law. In India too we have a rule of the law system but there are significant differences to be noted. First is that at no level are members of the judiciary elected. Second and equally important is that for the defining of guilt there are no juries. This aspect raises some questions about the nature of rule of law. I have repeatedly talked about rule of law without talking of what constitutes law itself. I shall immediately remedy that situation.

When human social groupings were still in tune with nature, laws of social conduct were derived from the laws of nature and therefore the basis of law in human society was cosmological, where the human being is just one part of a cosmos with no special status. With the passage of time and with the emergence of 'civilization' human beings slowly moved away from cosmology to religion where a God comes into being and the universe is treated as His Creation. In this religious system, the human being enjoyed a status that was higher than that of any other animal and the difference could be seen in the human being's ability to cogitate rationally to understand the rules of conduct laid down by God. Laws were dictates of God that had to be legitimated by holy books. These laws therefore could never be broken. With further 'progress' human beings appropriated unto themselves a status wherein it was believed that the universe was there for the pleasuring of the human species. Therefore all other forms of life were treated as necessarily inferior. This also meant that the human being without any compunction eliminates all forms of life at his/her convenience. Logging of trees, taming of animals, eliminating some animals calling them pests are representations of this line of thinking. I would like to say here that in order to cut a long story short I have eliminated a lot of subtleties but on the whole my rendition of the story is accurate.

To proceed with the story then, when the human being becomes the Master of the Universe, the perception about the origin of laws changes yet again. Law is now taken to be the outcome of rational deliberation on the part of citizens in society and it is therefore the rational and logical desire of people to live life in a certain way. The story is so far so good. But a problem comes into being at this juncture. If all laws are rational and deliberate expression of human will and if the legislature is the law making body, then true power or Sovereignty must lie with the legislature. The theory of checks and balances says that even the legislature cannot exceed limits and that will be determined by the judiciary. It is this problem that generates others. The judiciary has the power to brand acts of the legislature and the executive as being illegal. In India the judiciary is not elected by the people. The legislature and executive are. The elected bodies and their actions can be over ridden by an appointed body. Now put this is in the present situation. The executive acts in a certain manner and immediately the judiciary is invoked. The judiciary then goes on to 'direct' all institutions of administration into doing things. This is called judicial activism. One saw the emergence of this in Delhi when the Supreme Court of India directed the Delhi Transport Corporation and the Delhi government to run buses on CNG in order to clear the air of pollution. After that judicial activism has been on the rise. I was one of the people to support it since at least one organ of the government was still functioning.

Now I am a little alarmed by the intervention of the judiciary into everything. The last two months in Andhra Pradesh, one would be pardoned for thinking that it is the judiciary that runs the government and that the other organs are redundant. Students want permission to hold rallies on the Osmania University campus and the police promptly denies it. Some one goes to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which overrules the police and gives permission. Another batch of students wants barricades removed, goes to court the court directs that they be removed with the comments that caused me a wee bit of amusement. In all this the executive is silent and one does not even know if it is functional. The legislature is dysfunctional since almost all legislators from Telangana and Andhra had resigned or has a suspended resignation in hand. Politics is no longer party based but region based. Telangana legislators vs Andhra-Rayalseema legislators. Really an unprecedented situation. Only once in the past in the 1990 when the V P Singh government had to prove its strength on the floor of the Indian Parliament, did one see a call for something like this. Ram Vilas Paswan called for legislators to cut across party lines and vote on the basis of their caste. That did not happen then, but the consolidation of legislators on two sides based on regions and irrespective of parties has happened in Andhra Pradesh. A most ludicrous situation which has neutered the legislature and the executive and given extra teeth to the judiciary, a body that is not even popularly elected. The Judges now run the government while the people's representatives lurk in the background to see what situation favours them. So for all practical purposes the happenings on the Osmania University campus are setting the agenda for politics in Andhra Pradesh and the proliferation of Joint Action Committees on the campus show that there is no one thinking there either. So what is facilitating this? In my next post I shall talk about some inherent problems in Liberal Democracy that get accentuated in the Indian context and make it possible for crises of this sort to emerge.

Leadership Crisis in India - Begins again.

A good State breeds good citizens who in turn breed a good State. So said Aristotle. As is the case with most instances one does not understand the implications of such statements until one is placed in a situation which highlights their importance. While studying as a student, that statement was one of those that sounded genuinely profound but I for one did not understand the full import of it. I have been teaching Aristotle, and for all my conceit which made me believe that I knew what I was talking about, it seems now that even then I did not understand its true significance. But the events of the last few days have finally opened at least a part of my eyes to what deep meaning Aristotle's statement has for all. The culprits again in this instance are the usual suspects, the TRS, the MNS, the Shiv Sena and since Valentine's day is fast approaching we could see action from Sri Rama Sene and the Bajrang Dal. K. Chandrasekhar Rao of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has warned yet again that consequences will be severe and that there would be blood baths if Telangana is not granted in ninety days. The Shiv Sena under the capable leadership of Bal and Udhav Thackeray has ensured that the film My Name is Khan is not screened in Mumbai. The other Thackeray, Raj has been Mumbai for Maharashtriansing for a long time now. But this blog is not a news channel, so I will spare of the details of their wanton acts and get to the root of what all this means.

Starting with the Shiv Sena, the MNS (Maharashtra Navnirman Samithi) it is very clear that their actions are very clearly impinging on the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to every citizen in India. That means Shah Rukh Khan has the right to say what he did about Pakistani Cricketers and the IPL. To stop the screening of his film on the basis of his utterances ultimately shows the resentment of the Shiv Sena when people use their fundamental right to freedom of speech. Especially so when it militates against their brand of communalism. Communalism also undermines another fundamental right, the one that guarantees everyone the right to follow a religion of their choice. To always target people on the basis of the religion they follow smacks of complete intolerance, which needless to say is very bad for society.

Now that brings me to the basic point of what cripples Indian society and regularly throws up crisis after crisis. Intolerance. There was a time when the country was known to have great tolerance to all things different and that lead to a reasonably peaceful coexistence among the citizens of the country. The situation has now changed quite significantly. The Sri Rama Sene does not 'tolerate' what it thinks is not 'Indian' culture. The same is the case with all the other vigilante groups that are sprouting all over the country. It is saddening to see that there are so many people who seem to think they not what Indian culture is when in reality they are clueless about it. Take the concept of democracy for example. Indian democracy is very different from democracy practiced elsewhere in the world. The concept came from the Western World to India. One should have a similar understanding of Valentine's Day. Indians practice it in a way which is quite different from what people in other countries do. To that extent it is now a part of Indian culture just as the practice of Christmas as a festival is. The police are there to take care of any nuisance that may arise out of stupid people doing idiotic things on Valentine's day. There is no necessity for vigilante groups to navigate around various parts of Indian cities and separate men from women.

The protagonists of Telangana cannot 'tolerate' the people of Coastal Andhra. They want them kicked out of Telangana. Or if they remain then they have to be second rate citizens. MNS and Shiv Sena cannot 'tolerate' non-Maharashtrians, especially North Indians in Mumbai and Maharashtra. As a result, two cities that represented true cosmopolitanism, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, namely Hyderabad and Mumbai, are victims of parochialism that threatens to wipe out in a day or two what has been built over a couple of centuries. And India in general starts witnessing things which were never considered possible here, things such as genocide, eliminating of missionaries, chasing men and women who choose a certain lifestyle etc. Intolerance is on the rise everywhere and that threatens to tear the fabric of democracy a bad name or perhaps it is already giving it one. Now you may ask what has this got to do with leadership crisis and with Aristotle. I would say everything.

The State is defined by its leadership that can and does mould good and enlightened laws and political practices and this transforms citizens who in turn lead an enlightened life. I am using the term enlightened here without the rigours of academic definitions which in certain instances confuse rather than clarify. The citizens who are enlightened in turn throw up good leaders who represent the State which is then a good State fostered by good citizens who are fostered by the good State. And so the wheel turns. That is what Aristotle had in mind. The Indian State did not have a bad beginning at all. Very much to the contrary its beginning was rather good. But somewhere the wheel stopped turning or has been punctured. That is there for us to see in the form of the current leadership in all parts of the country and in all parties that are here. That is what makes the Indian State a not so good one and obviously that is telling on the quality of citizens as well. That is not to say that there are no enlightened citizens in India. It is only to say that the State no longer creates a political playground in which there is scope and room for enlightened citizens to participate. Today the sword is mightier than the pen and brawn has got the better of brain. Bad leaders, bad political practices, intolerance and instability have therefore become the order of the day. So today India stands as bad ambassador for democracy. There must be an explanation for this. After all of what use is problem identification if it is not backed up by an explanation of what causes it in the first place? In the next part that is what I shall attempt to do, i.e answer the question of how Indian democracy and leadership got to where they are today. That part will come soon.

Leadership crisis in India - Afterword

I have been away from the blog for a fairly long time because of my involvement in the organizing of a seminar for my department. I therefore apologize to anyone who has been reading and following my blog. I also have to apologize because I am continuing my thoughts on something that I believed I had closed when I said "Leadership crisis in India - Conclusion". I have since, realized that a number of events have taken place and those have drawn my attention to the way in which leadership operates in this country. I have been very proud of my country and defended it with evangelical zeal when anyone spoke against it. My standard line of defence was that nothing is perfect and therefore there is no necessity to castigate India because there are a few things about it that are not palatable. However, in the last few days even this patriot in me has been jolted by some happenings. The first thing that shocked me was the fact that school children are now being "drafted" into political campaigns. In the quest for a separate Telangana the leadership of the cause has decided not to spare even children who certainly do not have any proper understanding of the issue. In fact, let me say that they do not have the ability to understand such complex issues yet. The part that puts fear in me is that this either suggests a complete bankruptcy of ideas on the part of the political leadership that is presently espousing this cause or more dangerously it is an attempt to indoctrinate young people even before they are out of schools, in some instances out of primary and secondary schools. This to me presents the possibility of having generations of people who are akin to programmed robots and whose functioning would be based in automaton conformity. This act therefore is not just bad strategy but bad ethics as well.

The trends that this country is witnessing are those which should set alarm bells off in any mind that is capable of cogitation. While the Telangana issue itself is one that represents a problematique (a source of many problems of a certain nature) it is now being compounded by the leadership of the Shiv Sena and the Maharashtra Navnirman Samithi (MNS) in Mumbai and Maharashtra. The various different Thackaray scions seem to want to keep Mumbai to themselves and drive everyone who is not a Maharashtrian out or keep them as second rate citizens, an effort similar to what the protagonists of Telangana are trying to do with Hyderabad.The difference is only in the degrees of equivocation but the intention is the same in both instances. I can recollect that a little over fifteen years ago Bangalore witnessed riots because the Kannadigas desired to throw out Tamilians from their city. All these developments are not really those that are the outcome of the desires of citizens but almost necessarily political machinations to create new constituencies and exploit them as vote banks. In support of such leaderships are "academicians" who label India a 'multi-national' State, a most terrible and cynical description of what India is.

Indian Nationalism that was once carefully built and nurtured by patriots during the Indian Independence Movement is today threatened by fissiparous tendencies that are based in an increasing parochialism. It is convenient to say that this is an unnecessarily alarmist interpretation of the present. My response to that is that those who do not learn from history are only condemning the future generations to a life that they do not deserve. The sacrifices of the past are today meaningless and are being mocked at by the present. In my considered opinion the future deserves better.

I had erroneously believed that I had closed the discussion on leadership crisis by naming the second part of the post as 'conclusion'. I had not realized that there was much more to say. That realization has dawned upon as I started writing this bit. I therefore have decided to re-open the issue and perhaps what I have now titled 'afterword' will have to be seen as 'foreword'. In the near future I shall start writing about what ails the leadership of this country and how that is destroying the fabric of this country by targeting all forms of social constructions including education. As someone involved with education it is my responsibility to continue to write against these unfortunate tendencies that are plaguing India. From my next post onwards I shall restart my thoughts on leadership crisis in India.

Leadership crisis in India - Conclusion

I apologise for being away for a while again, especially without finishing an idea that I started. A combination of factors has been the reason but indolence is perhaps at the top of that. Anyway to comeback to what I was saying in my previous post, how does one identify a leader. I must say that in most situations leaders do come into the forefront situationally. The problem lies not with the people who have leadership qualities (there are enough of them) but with those who cannot recognise a good leader even when there is one standing in front of them. This is the true problem that India has. And it stems out of the fact that there is no semblance even of a meritocracy in India. I am the first to argue that a complete meritocracy is unachievable and also that there are a few philosophical issues that complicate the issue of what constitutes merit and therefore what is a meritocracy. Under the circumstances one will have to have some operational guidelines of what a concept is so as to not end up in nihilism. I say this because many times I have come very close to becoming or may even have been a nihilist, in instances. Without getting into rhetoric it is possible to argue that there is a system in place and that leaders are required to run it on a daily basis (house keeping functions) and also to look into the future not as in crystal ball gazing but as in anticipating problems that a country is likely to face and also being ready with strategies that will become solutions to those problems. That is a simple enough proposition and very workable.

Take the case of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Most people are quite happy to make stupid jokes about him, call him a puppet etc. These people are missing a point. They are unable to look at a true and good leader. That is because the stereotypical way of looking at leaders is that which says leaders must be powerful orators, whip up mass frenzy, make people do things that they demand of them and the list goes on. In which case the greatest and most successful leaders in the world would be Hitler and perhaps even N T Rama Rao. I do not have to say anything about the first name, but people maybe surprised by my bringing up the second name in this context. To me N T Rama Rao was a failed leader, whose non-existent leadership qualities came to be extolled only because of the stupidity of the general mass of people. Somebody plays a few stupid roles in films and people think that in real life too that person will be a saviour just as he was in films. But fortunately that was found out by the people who sent him out of power and the second time he became Chief Minister only because people realized that the other party the Congress that is, was even more incapable. This trend seems to continue with Chiranjeevi being taught a good lesson at the hustings. But the problem is grave, irrespective of a few people being taught lessons. Rahul Bajaj one said that Chandra Babu Naidu was thinking about the next generation when other politicians were thinking about the next election. I hope he has realised how far away he was from reality since time has shown that Naidu is nothing but a cunning, devious and opportunistic politician. Today people are singing praises of Y S Rajashekhar Reddy and his leadership qualities and how that won the Congress elections in Andhra Pradesh. If leadership is all about promising free things, ruining the economy and keeping people lazy and below the poverty line, then I have nothing to say. Naidu ran the State like it was a business corporation and Reddy ran it like it was his personal fiefdom. Yet there should be some explanation for the Congress doing well in the elections. For all my criticism of Y S R Reddy I would say that two projects "Jalayagnyam" and "Arogyasri" showed glimpses of some thought. Now is the time to renew my thoughts on Manmohan Singh. Not an orator, not a charismatic personality but a most impressive leader. He knows what needs to be done for the future of this country as much as the present. His initiatives in education are laudable. Education of the people is true empowerment and that is where his vision can be seen. The launching of new National Universities is testimony to this. Power or electricity is one of the most important issues facing the country today and its development hinges on how much electricity is generated. Manmohan Singh's initiative in signing the 123 Agreement with the USA against all odds is truly outstanding. Nuclear power is the way ahead undoubtedly. Now here is a politician thinking of the next generation and how many have recognized this? Not too many in my estimation. A leader at the top can take initiatives but how many of them will convert into reality? One person's leadership is not adequate. There should be many, many more who are able to take the process forward at different levels. Singh wants universities, but these may end up with Vice-Chancellors who are political appointees in which case the new universities will also fall into the same rut as the existing ones. This is India's problem. Too few people to recognise the many leaders that are there around them and endow them with leadership positions. Instead there are mediocre and less than mediocre people manning important institutions like universities in particular and education in general. There are many other spheres like this. There are people who can man them but never will, simply because India's leaders are rabble-rousers who are quite contented to stay in positions of power by cunning means while real issues are thrown away somewhere. I am not a prophet of doom, but there is a crisis looming upon this country and there is very little leadership and thought about how to handle that.

Leadership crisis in India - 1

In the concluding part of my piece on "Agitations" I had said that I would next be writing about leadership and its crisis in India. Then I was overcome by pangs of guilt for not explaining my true position on the "Agitation" and in the process I said that I would look at the agitation's implication for the social fabric of this country and for federalism too. The logical thing would have been to continue with that line of thought because the issue is topical. But somehow I feel that whoever is reading this blog is tired of my writing only about one issue, two or three pathetic attempts at breaking the monotony not withstanding. So it seems the time is ripe to give that line (the agitation one that is) a break and write about the leadership crisis. Now having said that I cannot guarantee that references to the agitation will not creep back into this piece as well. But the saving grace would be that they will be just references, if at all. I cannot however guarantee that this piece will not be pathetic. I shall leave it to you to judge that.

Let me first make it clear as to what got me thinking about issues of leadership. I am an avid follower of music, rock music at that and I have always marveled at the control that record companies have over bands who are actually the creators of the music. But it was not too difficult to understand that since record labels wield financial power and also because they retain the rights to marketing and promotions, they are in a position to dictate terms to bands. The more difficult question to understand for me was why managers who are paid by bands have a fair amount of control over the bands. The answer to this came to me in a more round about fashion. I myself have been involved in various rock bands. Let me also tell you that in all the bands that I have been a member or a guest, I was the LEAST talented. Even that perhaps is untrue because every once in a while I question myself and find that I somehow am not blessed with any talent at all, in any field. But for reasons of convenience we shall proceed with the premise that I was and am the least talented. Yet the status that I have enjoyed within these bands was not commensurate with my talent. In most instances I saw myself playing leader. Over time I have understood that this happened because I had the courage and the drive to give bands a push in a certain musical direction and take decisions without fearing the consequences of those. I also was forthright in what I wanted and never employed deception. Therefore, people who were very talented (one of the hight lights of my life is that I have had the proud privilege and honour of playing with some of the most gifted musicians) felt convinced by the things that I said and empowered me to take the decisions. That is when I learnt first hand what being a leader meant and what went into being a leader. Please do not construe this account of a part of my life as an attempt at blowing my own trumpet. I only mentioned it because I thought it would have an impact on the narrative that I am indulging in now on leadership.

While what I have written above shows positive things happening and demonstrating to me what leadership is, most of my other lessons have come from totally unacceptable situations which high light the indecisiveness born out of cowardice and lack of understanding of issues and therefore negatively impact on decision making. Most of these situations, I encountered at work. Here is an important disclaimer of sorts. I have worked with many great leaders but it is those who did not have leadership qualities but occupied positions of leadership that brought me face to face with some very valuable lessons. I cannot remember which of the Roosevelts (Theodore or Franklin) said that committee systems were invented by cowards to hide behind safety in numbers and prevent responsibility being pinned on them, but it is indeed a wonderful statement of fact. Look at governance at any level today and it is all based in committee systems where egos fight with each other and all decision making is delayed. Committees are bodies in which everyone agrees to disagree or disagrees to agree or have a frank exchange of views or some such rubbish. It is a pity that today the paradigm of work is this stupid system in which horses and donkeys are reduced to an artificial oneness. I cannot therefore help but agree with Voltaire that it is better to be ruled by a lion than by a thousand rats. In my career spanning almost two decades there must have been at least twenty instances when I have approached higher ups with ideas to make the education system better but each time I was presented with this huge wall called a committee and I have had to retreat after banging my head on that wall. Sometimes I have been part of these committees and there too my experience was similar except that I was banging my head on the other side of the wall. That is the reason why I am always questioning the merits of a democracy but reminding myself of Nehru's assertion that he supported democracy because other forms of governance were even worse. I also remind myself of Hitler and the gas chambers and the application of the final solution. Even these frightening instances cannot keep from questioning the whole idea of leadership. A good and able leader, how or where can one be found? How does one look for that person? I will write my thoughts on that in the next round of this blog. Indulge my indolence till then, please.

My take on agitations - Afterword

Let me make a couple of confessions. First of all this whole thing that I have titled as "My take on agitations" is actually rooted in cowardice. It should simply have read "My take on the Separate Telangana Agitation". This is not a justification for my cowardice, but the whole atmosphere which is so vitiated makes one think twice while doing these things. But every thing that I have written in my blog is accurate and authentic. The content is genuine. But to the reader it will be obvious that never have I mentioned where I stand. It is all as if a researcher is viewing this situation by standing at a vantage where he is personally not involved. That in a sense is true of me as well. But I live here in this area and therefore I must have a view. I am from Telangana. My father, my grandfather et al are from Telangana. Yet I do not somehow subscribe to the view that a separate Telangana is an answer to the problems raised by being in a united Andhra Pradesh. Those of you who may have read that lengthy piece would know what the problems are and how much they are rooted in the struggle for power between various castes. To me this is untenable. The whole articulation of the Telangana question is for me very flawed. At its most innocent it is a knee jerk reaction and its most diabolic (which is unfortunately the dominant paradigm) it is a strategy for the capturing of power. To me that is a serious indication at fractures not just in Andhra Pradesh but possibly those that can at a later juncture manifest in the Indian State itself. This is neither tea pot whimsy nor is it the fear of a paranoid person. There are many challenges facing the country today and at the base of it all is the one that emerges out of caste fissures. The Telangana movement too is caste based today and whatever comes out of if it has consequences for the whole country and in my opinion not pleasant ones at all. The other challenge that is important is what it means in terms of challenges of and to governance. Looking at the small picture, it is easy to say that small states facilitate better governance. What is being missed in the small picture is that these small states are not independent republics and therefore more number of states should be seen in the context of what it means for federalism and nationalism. My gut feeling is that it is not such a wonderful thing. I am aware that my views will possibly distance me from some friends (and very good ones at that) and win me some new enemies, but what are convictions for when they are not expressed, fear not withstanding. In the next few days I will deal with what could be the implications for Indian Nationalism both from the caste and small states points view. At the moment I am relieved that I have made my confessions.

My take on agitations - conclusion

The last bit of my story on the Telangana agitation mentioned the previous separatist agitation. Since then a lot of things have happened which culminated in the second iteration of the same. Here is the time when one has to understand the role of the dominant upper castes in the Telangana region. The sons of the soil argument has been forwarded first by the Telangana Reddys and the Velamas. These two castes are firmly rooted in Telangana feudalism and have not kept up with the pace of entrepreneurial capitalist progress that the Kamma community from coastal Andhra had shown. The Kamma entrepreneur grew in stature and in size during the rule of the TDP with NT Rama Rao as Chief Minister. In fact, the Telugu Desam party represented the Kamma business interest and was patronized by the Kammas from Coastal Andhra. Media Baron Ramoji Rao threw his weight behind NTR and the TDP and functioned almost as a mouth piece for the party. The shrewd entrepreneurial spirit of Ramoji Rao saw him taking his Eenadu daily newspaper in Telugu to every nook and cranny of the state of Andhra Pradesh. Over a period of time highly localised editions of the newspaper became available. What became a formidable combination was NTR's populist policies as Chief Minister and the carrying of the news of the same to all people by the Eenadu news paper. This did lead to an increase in the popularity of NTR and the TDP especially in the Telangana region where populism worked due to the relatively higher levels of poverty and lack of development. This also presented an opportunity for the Kamma capitalist from Coastal Andhra to expand into the Telangana region. The logical destination for this was Hyderabad which is the State Capital and the biggest market. It all started off as hotel industry and the cinema industry. Later on it went on to retail market capturing and finally onto the Information Technology industry which came alive with the dot com boom (which later went bust) and the opportunities provided through the Y2K problem. Mainly the Kamma caste and some others like the Rajus and Brahmins from the Coastal Andhra region basically took advantage of the IT boom. During this time another development happened. Hyderabad saw the drain of the original dwellers to the USA over a period of time. These Hyderabadis went to the States with the intention of never returning and the space left by them in Hyderabad was occupied by a wave of migration from the coastal districts. This is the time that also saw the burgeoning of engineering colleges and the sheer number of them actually made local reservations almost redundant. The students from Coastal Andhra were in a better position to compete and therefore amassed the benefits. When the second IT wave came, it brought the out sourcing boom with it. Now was the opportunity not only to go abroad but also make use of jobs in Hyderabad itself with Chief Ministers like Chandrababu Naidu and Rajshekhar Reddy encouraging the trend. The business opportunity was once again taken up by the Coastal Andhra entrepreneurs, and the jobs by the educated sections from there. The mainly feudal Reddys and Velamas missed out on these opportunities and have since been relegated into the background. For caste groups that had dominated the region for aeons this situation was most unpalatable. The other losers were people from the BC and SC communities since they were never provided decent education ever. NTR's and TDP's support of local capitalism translated into a divide between the feudal Reddy and Velama communities on the one side and the capitalist Kamma and Raju communities on the other. On both sides are the Brahmins playing relatively insignificant and consequently peripheral role in the development of antagonisms freshly.

The feudal culture of Telangana also meant that jobs were given to those who curried favour with the entrenched power groups represented by the Reddys and the Velamas. This unfortunate tendency was extended even into government employment and educational institutions including universities. The bit about the universities is extremely important because in the last three decades a good university like Osmania University has seen its reputation go down drastically in social sciences due to lack of quality teachers and researchers. The same maybe true of other faculties as well. This tendency has almost killed education in the districts of Telangana and education has been reduced to the provision of degrees to students who have no knowledge of the subjects that they are supposed to have studied. Here is a crisis. There are plenty of jobs available in Hyderabad but nobody from Telangana has the skill or the capability to claim them. These jobs have gone to Andhra people wherever there are hard core skills requirements and to people from other parts of the country wherever there are jobs that need soft skills.

The Reddys and the Velamas have also slowly lost their lands and the power that comes along with it. For communities used to the exercise of social power this is an unfamiliar situation and the step that they have taken is the kindling of the separate Telangana State spirit in order to drive back the Coastal Andhra Kammas and any one else who is a threat to them. When they were in power they had followed the David Eastonian principle of authoritative allocation of resources and values but with the growth of power of the Kammas the same principle was used by the other side to dispossess the Reddys and the Velamas in the technocracy that was created in the State especially during the reign of Chandrababu Naidu. This coincided with the time when the Indian State and the State of Andhra Pradesh had embarked upon a programme of structural reform as advised by the World Bank and that saw a drastic pull back from the employment sector by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. With the withdrawal of the State and a majority of jobs going into the private sector a meritocracy of sorts came into being and employment depended on certain skills which people from Telangana were not in possession of thanks to an almost useless and archaic system of education. This has led to lack of employment among the rural students of Telangana. The Separate Telangana agitation has two dimensions. The call for a Separate Telangana by the Reddys and Velamas now, is basically an attempt to snatch back the power that they are used to. Their belief is that if the State becomes accessible to them again they would be in a position to exercise social power. The other side is represented by the students who mainly belong to BC, SC and to an extent ST communities. Politicians, especially the Maoists are interested in exploiting this opportunity so that they can seize control of a new State. The belief of the students is that the creation of the new State would help them to get employment while the Maoists who have lost a lot of ground in their traditional stronghold want that back. The Telangana issue is therefore more complex than it seems and has within itself tangles that will prove to be a problem now and in the future. The agitation is now headless in the sense that it is now in no one's hand. There are various groups and all believe that they can gain control of the movement and corner the benefits that come with the success of the movement. What all this will lead do is anybody's guess. There is no crystal ball that one can gaze into and predict the future. I am just being social science student doing a post facto analysis of things. Whatever may happen with the movement it seems that it is unlikely to make everyone happy because within the movement there are tensions which will surface when the question of who controls Telangana pops up. That then is the conclusion to my story. In all this I have seen that there is a huge failure at all levels in terms of leadership and that for us should be a matter of concern. A failed leadership is a failed country and that should be unacceptable to anyone. This is a subject that needs further exploration and that is what I hope and intend to do next.