Discussing the Alternatives to Put an End to This Telangana Issue

By: Ranjit Nair

Roll No:  EE10B032

Overview of My Post

Well, as most of my group members have very well described the history and the reasons leading to the demand of a separate state, I won't go much deep in that area. My discussion will be mainly concerned with the following points:

• Analyzing the suggestions of the Sri Krishna Committee.
• Politics over the report and centre's dilemma.
• Coming up with a solution such that everyone gets a piece of Cake.

Srikrishna Committee Report

Will Telengana happen? Is there a solution that will be acceptable to people of Andhra, Rayalaseeme & Telangana regions?What sort of an arrangement will enable people of all regions to chart out their own future peacefully? Will a division be fair to the citizens of Hyderabad? These questions were avidly discussed after the highly anticipated Sri Krishna Committee Report came out in public. Members of the Committee toured the state extensively , received over 20,000 petitions and spoke with numerous delegations, periodically made assurances that they would try to produce a report that would produce a report that would satisfy a majority of the people. They also asserted that the committee would not see any extension and that the report would be handed over to the Government of India on time. At least on that count the committee did not disappoint.


But any hopes that the report would offer a way out of the impasse were belied. The recommendations of the committee were largely seen as a disappointment. The TRS, BJP & TDP possibly got the wind that the report won't favor Telangana and hence they refused to depute its representatives to Delhi on 6th January, when recommendations were to be unveiled. The 635 page report suggested 6 possible solutions. Its first and preferred course of action was status quo: Keep the state of Andhra Pradesh as it is and set up regional development councils for Telangana. The councils would look after the planning and economic development, water and irrigation , education, local administration and public health. At the same time, the committee also said that according to their investigations, districts in the Telangana region were not backward when compared to the rest of Andhra Pradesh. This lead to a huge reaction from the TRS party that questioned the authenticity of the report. They also asked why regional councils were recommended if Telengana did not lag behind in development.


Among other solutions was a proposal to bifurcate the state but not giving the diamond (Hyderabad) to anyone, i.e, to make it a Union Territory. This was because Hyderabad had grown enormously over the preceding decade and had become a part of the global economy for the information technology sector. Besides being an engine of growth, Hyderabad was also home to numerous national, military and defense establishments. Moreover, the committee felt that one-third of Hyderabad consisted of outsiders. Strangely enough, the presence of real estate industry was also was one of the reasons given by committee for recommending that Hyderabad become a Union Territory. It suggested that with Hyderabad as Union Territory, both region will have to develop their own capitals. The report also acknowledged the strong sentiments in many parts of the Telangana region for a separate state. Unemployed youth, lawyers and non-gazetted government employees were the main people behind the demand for a separate state, the report suggested.


An interesting feature of the report ids that one of its chapters was being withheld from the public. It is understood that this chapter, readied after receiving the inputs from intelligence agencies and the police, says that a proposed Telangana state would fall to Maoist which are strong in the neighboring Chhattisgarh.

Politics Over the Report

In India, I believe that an non-controversial report over a major topic is unthinkable :). So, as expected, the report faced severe criticism from various political parties. But it was not merely political parties which were taken aback by the report. The campuses of Osmania and Kakatiya Universities saw trouble once again. Student indulged in heavy stone-throwing after the contents of the report became known. Sensing trouble that it would intensify, P. Chidambaram announced that the committee's report was not the last word on Telangana. It was merely a starting point for the debate. But Telangana activists, MPs, MLAs were far from being satisfied. All these Mps and MLAs served an ultimatum to the party high command: please ensure that a bill to create Telangana is introduced in Telangana in its budget session, or we resign. Political leaders from Telangana were furious over the way Maoism was stated as an excuse against the creation of Telangana.


Though the committee may have overplayed the Maoist angle, it is a fact that ultras ho have their command headquarters in the jungles adjoining Dantewada ( in Chhattisgarh ) keep a close watch on these areas. They also have considerable influence in Telangana, having originally belonged to this area.


What makes it difficult for the centre to take a stand, apart from the contrasting sentiments within the state, is the fact that trying to carve out Telangana from Andhra  Pradesh will bring forth similar demands from other regions in the country. As of date, there are at least seven serious demands for the creation of new states pending with union government. The most well known amongst them are the demands for Gorkhaland( carving a new state from West Bengal ), Vidarbha ( to be created from Maharashtra ) and Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh ( to be formed from Uttar Pradesh ). If the government bites the bullet on Telangana it will have to seriously consider proposals for the other new states. More importantly, the break-up of Andhra Pradesh will also violate the principle on which Indian states were reorganized in 1956.This was done on the basis of the belief ( right or wrong ) that in India language was the basis of the culture. The principle applied that if you spoke the same language you were culturally homogeneous.


At the same time, it is possible to argue that in the heady decade fallowing the independence, when linguistic states were formed in 1956, integration was the cornerstone of policymaking. The belief among policy makers was that having states on the basis of a common language would foster this. But decentralization is the “Mantra” these days. Small is beautiful. A country like the USA which has only one-fourth the population of India has fifty-one states, so what is the sacrosanct about having only twenty-eight states in a country of 1.2 billion people ? If the integration of Andhra spurred the movement for linguistic states, its bifurcation can pave path path for smaller states across the nation. What is wrong with having Vidarbha, Harit Pradesh , Bundelkhand and many more such states ?  Smaller states will be better administered and will bring the government closer to the people. It will also open up opportunities for the local population and encourage use of local resources. However, some principle must be devised on the basis of which states should be formed. Otherwise, the demand for new states will be a never-ending spiral.


Another option is to have a three-tier system of government: one Central government that looks after only broad subjects like defence, finance and external affairs; a state government that looks after law and order, education, health and a few other subjects; lastly a district-level government that looks after development at the local level. Such a system, though pleasing, is highly unlikely as it would need complete overhaul of the current way of administration. But the decision to new states or not rests completely in the hands of Congress party at the highest level. Only Union Government has been empowered by the constitution to redraw the internal map of India. Will the ruling coalition find it politically favorable ? Well, according to me, quite possibly yes. Despite the political turmoil that it is going through at the moment, with a series of scams, unchecked rise in prices and blah blah blah. The thinking in the upper echelons of the congress is that it is the only national party of consequence in the Country. With the rout of the only other national party- the BJP – in two successive elections, the Congress possibly feels that there is no threat to it from a national party as of now. The only challenge to its hegemony is from a possible coalition of a regional parties like Telugu Desam Party, the Biju Janata Dal, the Janata Dal ( United ) and others. Creation of smaller states would check this potential challenge by converting regional parties into sub-regional parties. A good example of this is TDP whose members in Andhra are espousing opposing points of view. As a result, two different delegations of the TDP went to depose before Srikrishna Committee. Chandrababu Naidu is caught in bind and knows well that no stand that he takes on the issue will satisfy the people on the both sides. Same goes with other parties as well because according to Andhra guys: if you are with Telangana, then you are against Andhra.

Is the Hong Kong Model Apt ?

Change is the essence of the life. Nothing remains constant, things evolve continually. Keeping this in mind it is easy to predict that whatever maybe the wish of die-hard supporters of Andhra Pradesh, status quo is unlikely to prevail in the state. Let's consider the case of Hong Kong for a second. When the British gave Hong Kong back to Chinese after 155 years of occupation, the latter realized that a lot of water had passed under the bridge in the interim. Hong Kong had now become a major trading and financial hub that transacted business worth of billions of dollars, a far cry from the small fishing port and opium trade centre when the English took it over. There was considerable amount of disquiet among the expatriate community about the fate of Hong Kong. Would the Chinese allow them to carry on their business as before was the question on everybody's lips. But the Chinese government took a pragmatic step: they realized that it would be foolish to destroy the hen that that laid the golden eggs. So Hong Kong has its own rules, regulations and laws, much like what it had been during the reign of the Britishers.. So the Hong Kong was made a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China where normal domestic laws of china did not apply. The effect of this 'One country, Two systems' was salutary. Investors and expatriates were happy that things continued the way they had before. China gained in terms of revenues that business in Hong Kong brought.


Taking cue from Hong Kong model, a similar model can be applied in Hyderabad. Since the major bone of contention is Hyderabad & its brand name, the solution could be to create Telangana and make Hyderabad a special administrative unit under the new state. Hyderabad  could have a its own city government with a legislature and ministers. The city government could be given limited powers with respect to land use, taxation and some aspects of law and order. But it would be incumbent on the city government to give a percentage of its revenues to the Telangana government that would have the responsibility of developing the entire state. Votaries of Telangana would be happy at the prospect because Hyderabad would continue to be under the state. The business community and the Andhra settlers in Hyderabad would be happy because there would be a different dispensation which would administer the city. An alternative idea is to create a state within a state. Instead of Hyderabad as a SAR of Andhra Pradesh. In this case, Telangana will have its own government with limited power, within Andhra Pradesh. This formula has been used once before in India. In April 1970, Meghalaya  was carved out out from two districts of Assam and made an autonomous state within the latter. However, less than two years later, in January 1972, Meghalaya was made a full-fledged state. Similarly, Telangana can be created as an SAR within Andhra Pradesh and after few years made a full fledged state. The Union government, in fact, could possibly be working towards a similar solution, with some reports suggesting that this is the favored solution of the ruling coalition. Nothing, however, is public and the people of Andhra Pradesh seem to be doomed to confusion about the future of events.

Conclusion

         Although people of the state still divided on regional lines, more than anything else they want closure of the issue. “I don't want Telangana but if it is to be given let it be conceded. This atmosphere of uncertainty is killing. It is making us defer business decisions and leaving many ifs and buts. This is impacting on our life. What we want is a final word from the government,” says S.K. Reddy, a leading businessman. Investors from the other parts of the country, who are now looking at destinations outside of Andhra Pradesh for investment opportunities, echo similar sentiments. 'We are now in a scenario of Hyderabad interrupted. The impasse has to be broken. It is necessary for life to go forward,' says Ajit Rangekar, the director of the prestigious Indian School of business (ISB). The all-important question is whether various parties to the debate will be able to rise above their partisan interests and bring the vexatious issue of Telangana to a close.