To no one’s surprise, the meeting of Andhra Pradesh political parties chaired by the Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, in New Delhi on Tuesday to thrash out the Telangana issue yielded little. The gathering has its importance nonetheless. Parties spelled out their views at an official forum. It is not likely these will be modified wholesale, but subsequent discussions — if they are encouraged on all sides — could help to modulate maximalist positions. In the case of the Congress and the Telugu Desam, their members are currently taking positions based on regional dictates, and in the light of the current atmosphere of violent agitation. With time, moderation of extremes are possible here too. The home minister has hinted at his desire for the setting up of a “mechanism” to take the process of exploration forward. We wish him well in this endeavour. Had he and his party’s leadership been farsighted about the matter, they could have begun with something like this instead of the precipitate announcement of December 9 initiating the process of forming a separate Telangana. Although the Union government and the Congress have played a miscued hand, the other influential players are not free from blame. Both the TD and PR need to explain their volte face. The CPI, which has enjoyed historical influence in Andhra Pradesh and agitated for a united state at the end of the Nizam era, and the BJP need to make the country understand if their original belief in linguistic sub-nationalism as a basis for the creation of states in the post-colonial period had been misplaced. The TRS chief, Mr K. Chandrasekhar Rao, appears reasonable when he says he is prepared for discussions in the pursuit of his objective. However, his supporters in Hyderabad have shown no lessening of volatility and are forever threatening recourse to violent agitation. A time will come when this dichotomy has to be set aside. No state can watch violent agitation passively for long. In this case, when administrative patience is exhausted, KCR will be obliged to take responsibility or dissociate himself from the mobs. So far, compulsions arising out of the agenda of agitation have set the tone for discussion on the Telangana issue. But the historical canvas can hardly be overlooked. After all, the union of the Telangana region of the Nizam’s domains with the coastal areas and Rayalseema, following the submission of the States Reorganisation Commission, was a legal act. Undoing this cannot transgress the bounds of legality. The suggestion appears to have been mooted that the President make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 in this regard. Whatever the outcome of this line of thinking, retracing the path in the Andhra Pradesh-Telanagana context can hardly be without regard to wider political implications for the country as a whole. Whatever the emotional arguments being put forward in the name of history by the proponents of a separate Telangana, it is shortsighted to imagine that the status of Hyderabad will not be a key point of debate. All political quarters need to prepare themselves for this. Politicians of every hue must also show the nerve not to be led by crowds in the name of a so-called people’s programme, and summon inner resources to lead the people instead in a rational, reasonable, democratic direction.