Politics surround new Telangana

Union home minister P. Chidambaram’s midnight announcement on Telangana on Wednesday took the country by surprise. The announcement brooked no delay, the minister clarified to Parliament the following day. Was there a serious apprehension in the government about the state of TRS chief K. Chandrashekhar Rao’s health that led to the government going public late at night while Parliament was in session? Or were there reasons of politics connected with salvaging the situation and keeping some of the initiative after KCR precipitated the crisis through his fast? The answers will doubtless emerge in due course, but the big question for now is: has a new state of Telangana been sanctioned in principle? In his tantalising Wednesday night statement, Mr Chidambaram noted that the process of formation of the new state of Telangana would be initiated soon with the passing of a resolution in the AP Assembly. This doesn’t sound like a done deal yet, and leaves open the scope for political consultations and negotiations all around, possibly leading to a new state being created if the surrounding politics are favourable. The home minister’s statement had the merit of getting KCR to end his fast and the agitation that had gathered steam and appeared to be menacing. This was necessary to stop matters getting out of hand, and pave the way for discussions with the TRS. Its chief has been invited to Delhi for confabulations by the home minister. That indeed was necessary. When KCR was for a while a minister in the UPA’s first government, the issue of studying the feasibility of a Telangana state had been entrusted to Pranab Mukherjee, the government’s chief troubleshooter. That report is not yet public. It is likely more will be known about it when KCR enters the discussion process. But the real battle will no doubt be witnessed in AP. It is to be seen if an agitation will be mounted to counter the Telangana demand. This had happened in 1972 when the “Jai Andhra” movement had been launched to checkmate the Telangana agitation. Chief Minister K. Rosaiah has said a resolution on Telangana will be moved in the Assembly only after a consensus is evolved among the political parties. This will by no means be easy. Already a very large number of Congress MLAs, as well as legislators from the main Opposition party, the TD, and others have submitted their resignations to protest against any move bifurcation of the state. Indeed, only a small fraction of Andhra MLAs appear in favour of a separate Telangana state at present. This underlines the sense that the issue is wide open. TD chief N. Chandrababu Naidu, who converted to the cause of Telangana after tribulations, appeared cautious on Thursday, saying TD’s support to the prospective resolution on Telangana in the Assembly would depend on the nature of the resolution. Clearly, there is a lot of politics to be played out before we can tell for sure about a new state. No less contentious is likely to be the status of Hyderabad. Telagana protagonists, of course, cannot conceive of statehood without this capital city. But neither can the backers of Visalandhra or a united AP. The Chandigarh model is no doubt on the table — a UT which is the state capital for two states. That is doubtless contingent on the new state of Telangana coming into being. Can another possibility be ruled out at this state — converting Hyderabad into a UT? We shall know as the politics churns on. The overall situation should be handled in a way that gives no impetus to divisive movements elsewhere, such as Gorkhaland.