|
|
 |
| TELANGANA REPORT |
| The survey in Andhra Pradesh was conducted between July 24th and 30st, 2011 as part of a larger State of the Nation Survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in 19 states. A total of 100 locations were randomly selected (four polling stations each in 25 Assembly Constituencies). The survey could not be conducted in the Assembly constituencies of Ibrahimpatnam and Mahbubabad (See Table 1) due to some difficulties. |
| |
|
TABLE 1: ANDHRA PRADESH TARGETED SAMPLE FOR STATE OF THE NATION SURVEY 2011 |
| ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY ID |
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NAME |
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS |
REGION |
| 4 |
MANCHERIAL |
57 |
TELANGANA |
| 18 |
NIZAMABAD RURAL |
62 |
TELANGANA |
| 32 |
HUSNABAD |
59 |
TELANGANA |
| 40 |
PATANCHERU |
53 |
TELANGANA |
| 48 |
IBRAHIMPATNAM
(COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED)
|
- |
TELANGANA |
| 57 |
MUSHEERABAD |
51 |
TELANGANA |
| 68 |
YAKUTPURA |
45 |
TELANGANA |
| 80 |
ALAMPUR (SC) |
79 |
TELANGANA |
| 91 |
SURYAPET |
57 |
TELANGANA |
| 102 |
MAHBUBABAD (ST)
(COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED)
|
- |
TELANGANA |
| 114 |
MADHIRA (SC) |
69 |
TELANGANA |
| 127 |
NARASANNAPETA |
76 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 140 |
VISAKHAPATANAM EAST |
61 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 152 |
PAYAKARAOPET (SC) |
56 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 164 |
RAZOLE (SC) |
76 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 178 |
BIMAVARAM |
80 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 190 |
GANNAVARAM |
78 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 203 |
JAGGAYYAPETA |
54 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 215 |
CHILAKALURIPET |
49 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 227 |
ONGOLE |
37 |
COASTAL ANDHRA |
| 140 |
VISAKHAPATANAM EAST |
11 |
RAYALASEEMA |
| 238 |
SARVEPALLI |
69 |
RAYALASEEMA |
| 250 |
JAMMALAMADUGU |
63 |
RAYALASEEMA |
| 262 |
KODUMUR (SC) |
57 |
RAYALASEEMA |
| 274 |
RAPTADU |
80 |
RAYALASEEMA |
| 286 |
TIRUPATI |
39 |
RAYALASEEMA |
|
| |
| A total of 1500 randomly selected names from the updated electoral rolls were approached for interview of which 1418 interviews were successfully completed. If we break it up by regions, then the sample size for Telangana is 532, for Coastal Andhra it is 567 and for Rayalaseema it is 319. The final respondent sample comprised of 54 percent women, 23 percent Dalits (SC), 4 percent Adivasis (ST), 6 percent Muslims and 77 percent rural respondents. If we compare these to the Census 2001 figures for Andhra Pradesh, then there is a slight underrepresentation of Adivasis and Muslims and a slight over representation of Dalits, Women and Rural respondents. (See Table 2). |
| |
| The interview was conducted face to face at the place of residence of the respondent using a standard-structured questionnaire in the language spoken and understood by the respondent. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box to ensure secrecy. |
| |
| TABLE 2: SAMPLE PROFILE COMPARED TO CENSUS FIGURES |
| |
Census 2001 (%) |
Survey (%) |
| Rural |
73 |
77 |
| Women |
49 |
54 |
| Muslim |
9 |
6 |
| Adivasi |
7 |
4 |
| Dalits |
16 |
23 |
|
|
DIFFICULTIES FACED DURING THE SURVEY IN TELANGANA
Out of 22 investigators selected for the survey in the Telangana region, 7 hailed from the region itself. The two investigators who visited Mahabubabad Assembly constituency (AC ID: 102) could not conduct the survey, as they were prevented and manhandled by activists claiming to be from the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) on the first day of the survey in polling station number 41. The activists took away all the questionnaires and threatened them to leave the place. They chased the investigators up to the railway station. This incident was reported in the electronic and print media the next day. On the second day, a similar situation was repeated in Ibrahimpatanam Assembly constituency (AC ID: 48) where activists claiming to be from TRS snatched all the questionnaires. The two investigators who did not belong to the Telangana region, stopped the survey and came back. Elsewhere, there was some resistance from local leaders in polling station 245 of Husnabad assembly constituency in Karimnagar district. The village president helped them complete the survey the next day. There was also some resistance in polling station 153 of Mancherial constituency of Adilabad district where the investigators had to stop the survey. A similar incident took place in the polling station 105 of Musheerabad assembly constituency in Hyderabad district, which is very close to the Osmania University campus. The two investigators who hailed from the Andhra region, took the help of research scholars from the University campus and completed the survey.
THE STATEHOOD QUESTION
In order to gauge public opinion on the contentious question of Telangana, CSDS has made it a point to ask a question on the issue in all its key surveys since 2004. The wording of the question has been kept identical in all the survey questionnaires, for the purposes of studying changes in opinion over a period of time. If we look at the data generated over the last seven years, we find that the sentiment for bifurcation in Andhra Pradesh as a whole has risen from 16% in 2004 to 19% in 2011 (See Table 3). Conversely, the proportion of those in favour of status quo, i.e., those who want the state to remain united, has also gone up from 59% in 2004 to 63% in 2011. |
| TABLLE 3: OPINION IN ANDHRA PRADESH ON DIVISION OF THE STATE |
| ANDHRA PRADESH SHOULD… |
2004 |
2009 |
2011 |
| BE BIFURCATED |
16 |
24 |
19 |
| BE TRIFURCATED |
3 |
3 |
2 |
| REMAIN UNITED |
59 |
51 |
63 |
| NO OPINION |
22 |
23 |
23 |
Sample size in 2004: 1399; 2009: 2507; 2011: 1418; All figures in % and rounded off; Rest of the Respondents had no opinion |
| |
Overall state numbers however don’t tell the real story. If we look at the region-wise break up, then we find that there is strong support for a separate Telangana state, within the Telangana region, and a strong opposition in the rest of the state, ie, Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. Seven years ago, one-third of Telangana region was in favour of bifurcation. Today half of Telangana wants a separate state (See Table 4). Seven years ago, two-thirds of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema wanted to remain united, now it is more than three-fourths.
| TABLLE 4: OPINION IN TELANGANA, COASTAL ANDHRA & RAYALASEEMA ON DIVISION OF STATE |
| ANDHRA PRADESH SHOULD… |
2004 |
2009 |
2011 |
| T |
CA |
R |
T |
CA |
R |
T |
CA |
R |
| BE BIFURCATED |
33 |
3 |
3 |
42 |
9 |
7 |
50 |
1 |
1 |
| BE TRIFURCATED |
5 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
| REMAIN UNITED |
46 |
70 |
66 |
33 |
62 |
81 |
18 |
93 |
87 |
| NO OPINION |
17 |
26 |
28 |
21 |
28 |
10 |
28 |
6 |
11 |
T=Telangana, CA= Coastal Andhra, R=Rayalaseema; All figures in % and rounded off; Rest of the Respondents had no opinion
This strong opinion for Telanagana within Telangana, and against Telangana outside it, can also be seen when we analyse the people’s opinion on the six solutions listed by the Justice B N Srikrishna Committee report on Telangana. While nearly half the respondents in Telangana agree with the solution that the state should be divided into Telangana and Seemandhra with Hyderabad as the capital of Telengana, three-fourths of the respondents in the rest of Andhra Pradesh want the present status to be maintained (See Table 5). So again, while there is very strong support for a separate state of Telangana within the region, stronger than ever before, we also notice that there is also an even stronger opposition to this idea in the rest of Andhra Pradesh.
| TABLLE 5: OPINION ON SRIKRISHNA COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS |
| Recommendations of Srikrishna Commission report on Telangana |
All |
Telangana |
Coastal Andhra |
Rayalaseema |
| Maintain the present status. |
55 |
13 |
88 |
68 |
| Divide the state into Telangana and Seemandhra with Hyderabad as the capital of Telengana. |
18 |
48 |
0 |
0 |
| Keep Andhra united but create Telangana Regional Council |
3 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
| Divide the state into Seemandhra and Telangana with Hyderabad as a Union Territory. |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
| Divide the state into Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions with Hyderabad as part of Rayala-Telangana. |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Divide the state into Telangana and Seemandhra with enlarged Hyderabad as Union Territory |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
| Have not heard of Shri krishna report and its recommendations/No opinion |
20 |
27 |
10 |
26 |
While there is no doubt very strong support for Telangana within the Telangana region, the strength of the support is not the same across various sections of society. For instance, the pro-Telangana sentiment is much higher in rural areas than urban areas of the Telangana region. It is less in Hyderabad and much higher outside it. The non-literates are more supportive of bifurcation than the educated. Among communities, Muslims, are more in favour of status quo than bifurcation
|
TABLE 6: OPINION ON BIFURCATION WITHIN TELANGANA BY SOCIAL BACKGROUND |
|
BIFURCATE ANDHRA PRADESH |
TRIFURCATE
ANDHRA PRADESH
|
ANDHRA SHOULD REMAIN UNITED |
NO OPINION |
| By Locality |
|
|
|
|
| Rural |
56 |
5 |
8 |
31 |
| Urban |
36 |
5 |
38 |
21 |
| Hyderabad region |
27 |
5 |
57 |
10 |
| Rest of Telangana |
55 |
5 |
9 |
31 |
| By Education |
|
|
|
|
| Non literate |
51 |
4 |
8 |
38 |
| Up to primary |
50 |
6 |
21 |
24 |
| Up to Matric |
51 |
6 |
22 |
22 |
| College and above |
46 |
7 |
32 |
15 |
| By community |
|
|
|
|
| Muslims |
27 |
8 |
43 |
22 |
It must also be pointed out that the support of the separate state of Telangana within the region, is much higher compared to responses to similar statehood questions asked in CSDS surveys over the years. For instance in 2002, only 30% respondents in Eastern Uttar Pradesh were in favour of a separate Purvanchal, and in 2004 only 47% respondents in the Vidarbha region supported the demand for a separate state of Vidarbha. Compared to these figures, 50% support for bifurcation within Telangana at present, seems quite high. The only exception where support for a state was much higher than it is in Telangana right now, was in Jharkhand in 2000. (See Table 7).
|
TABLE 7: SUPPORT FOR SEPARATE STATES IN THE PAST |
| SURVEY YEAR |
QUESTION ASKED |
OPINION WITHIN |
YES |
NO |
| 2000 |
Demand for separate state of Jharkhand OK? |
Jharkhand region |
68 |
15 |
| 2002 |
In favour of separate Purvanchal? |
Eastern Uttar Pradesh |
30 |
34 |
| 2004 |
Demand for Separate State of Vidarbha justified? |
Vidarbha region |
47 |
41 |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
