The Srikrishna Committee, while speaking about the poorest of the poorer -- the landless agricultural labourers -- in Telangana, said the following, “On the other hand, the Telangana region is experiencing a considerable erosion of relative income amongst the relatively poorer sections, although the richest seem to have gained during the reference period. (p.107) ...“This analysis provides credence to the fact that the most of the deprived communities in Telangana are facing hardship. (p.108) ...“Such deepening inequity in Telangana cannot only sustain the separatist agitation but it can also carry it further and increase its intensity. (p.119) ...“But, what is revealing is the fact that considerably larger proportions have reported themselves as agricultural labourers in Telangana which has increased from 38% to 47%, and in Rayalaseema this share has increased from 24% to 39%. In coastal Andhra region, the share of agricultural labour has increased only by about one percent.” (p.101) ...“While the farmers in all regions have shown stable income or income which has hardly changed, the real income of the agricultural wage labour has declined considerably in Telangana, whereas it has increased considerably in coastal Andhra region (See Figure 2.39).” (p.108) However, while the commission refers one to charts, etc, it does not deal with the real figures in the text; instead, it hides them in the Appendix volume. Here they are: In Volume 2, Appendix Table 2-1 on page 121: “The rural population in Telangana is 18.2 lakhs, in Rayalaseema 9.0 lakhs and in Coastal Andhra 21.4 lakhs.” Actually, the figures are wrong. The Srikrishna Committee missed a decimal place! The figures are 182 lakhs for Telangana, 90 lakhs for Rayalaseema and 214 lakhs for Coastal Andhra. A small mistake! Thus 47 per cent of the rural population being agricultural labourers in Telangana means that nearly 85.5 lakhs are in this category. The committee admits that the “real income of the agricultural wage labour has declined considerably in Telangana” and refers us to another chart. This chart, when closely examined, indicates that in the 10 years between 1993-94 and 2004-05, this group of Telangana people (nearly 90 lakh persons) saw a DECLINE of 35.9 per cent in their income! Over the same period, the 42.7 lakh agricultural wage labourers in the Rayalaseema group suffered a real income decline of only 6.7 per cent. Wonder of wonders is that the same group in Coastal Andhra over the same period - no numbers given by the committee - but the Srikrishna Committee says has ONLY increased by ONE percent and the real income of the whole group INCREASED by a phenomenal 42.2 per cent! So while the real income (i.e., purchasing power) of Telengana’s worst-placed economic group, amounting to nearly ten million persons, fell by 36 per cent, that of the same group over the same time in Coastal Andhra ROSE by 42 per cent. Even trying to discount the deprivation in Telangana by comparing it with Rayalaseema (the committee’s standard method) does not work as the decline in Rayalaseema is one-fifth of that in Telangana.How does the Srikrishna Committee explain this? It avoids it altogether and tell us stories of Telengana’s GDP being great (Appendix 2.4 shows an increase between 1993-94 and 2000-01 of 38 per cent); that the region is not backward (despite the government of India identifying 9 of the 10 Telangana districts for the Backward Region Grants); that the irrigation increase is “whooping” (despite the fact that government irrigation acreage fell by 11 lakh acres); and that crop productivity is as high or higher than in Andhra or Rayalaseema. Go tell all this to the ten million agricultural labourers whose real income fell by a third while their Andhra cousins saw an increase of 42 per cent. No wonder their children are in revolt and their parents are solidly behind them in the fight for a Telangana state.Who did the Srikrishna Committee talk to when they wandered around Telangana? Not, apparently, to landless agricultural labourers. And which political party cares about their plight?
Comments
0 comment