Telangana!
I write this post on the afternoon of a thursday, 23rd December, 2009, the morning after the Govt. of India has confirmed that due to lack of consensus has postponed a decision on Telangana. This post is more than a year after my last post, and yet, I cannot think of a better reason to move out of my cyber-hibernation.
Over the past few weeks, I have had the good fortune to speak to several politicians, small sections of the media, bureaucrats and good friends in the state, all who have had strong viewpoints on the Telangana state issue. And I, despite not being "genetically" an Andhra-ite, have lived in Hyderabad since my birth, and can definitively claim that I know more about the city and state than over 99% of the populace. I might not have "andhra-sentiments", but I have had the privilege of being intimately associated with the growth of the city over the past few decades, and I happen to know my facts, atleast broadly. This post is a detailed summary of all my thoughts.
Telangana is a region that is several millennia old, and even finds mention in treatises like Mahabharata. This region saw the glorious rule of the Kakatiyas, Satavahanas, before being taken over by islamic rulers of the 14th and 15th century. Over the centuries, and until the early part of this century, Telangana, headquartered by Hyderabad, has been the seat of the Brahmani, Mughal, Qutub Shahi and finally, the Asaf Jahi dynasties.
Upon independence and the abolition of the nizam rule, Andhra Pradesh became a part of the state of Madras briefly, and then, after a fast-unto-death by Potti Sriramulu, was confirmed to be a separate state in 1953, and further to the recommendations of the State Reorganization Committee, was created into a united Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Somehow, there has always been resentment towards the unification of the state, and it has manifested itself in several struggles over the last fifty years.
Arguably, the most serious threat to unified Andhra Pradesh was the movement of 1969, where parties such as the Telangana Praja Samiti (headed by later chief minister Channa Reddy), was involved in a serious struggle that took over 350 lives. However, the next elections saw them defeated, and the cause was subdued for several years after that. Most of the TPS leaders moved into the ranks of the Congress, and joined mainstream politics in the state.
Since 1990, this movement saw a revival, with several parties speaking in isolated whispers about a separate telangana state. The reasons of this were many. The new economic revolution triggered by the 1991 reforms had begun to hit the state, and, under the visionary leadership of Chandrababu Naidu, Hyderabad was developing into a sprawling metropolis. Union Government had been gradually weakened by the lack of a strong leader of the stature of Indira Gandhi. There was room for a revolution, this time driven by political gains, and a grassroots movement began to take shape. A new force began to emerge in the early part of the 21st century - the Telangana Rastriya Samiti, headed by K Chandrasekhara Rao (KCR). Eccentric, strategist, mercurial yet ineffective, these are a few names that describe KCR. Over the past few years, he has used the sentiment to stay relevant, but has been unable to fashion this into a revolution that could create a new state. By 2004, Congress also had put a separate Telangana on its agenda. In 2009, Telugu Desam Party, the principal opposition, had also decided for Telangana, and was contesting the election under the banner of a "Grand Alliance". Unfortunately, this alliance was routed in the elections, and Congress, under the charismatic YS Rajasekhara Reddy, came back to power, and the Telangana issue was buried under the euphoria of a new Congress era led by another generation of the Gandhis.
Life had its twists, and in another three months, the strongest Andhra Congress leader in the last half-century, YSR, tragically perished in a helicopter accident, creating a leadership void which the next CM, Konijeti Rosaiah, was unable to fulfill. AP saw more carnage, in the form of the worst floods in a century, and then, one fine morning in late November, that phoenix KCR announced that he would be going on a fast-unto-death for a separate Telangana state. The movement was energized again!
"A politician goes hungry to redraw India's map", announced the New York times, as the world watched as a single man put pressure on the central government with every passing day to carve out a separate state. A weak administration watched helplessly, as the Osmania University students put their might behind the movement, and Hyderabad city was set on fire. Eleven days later, on the night of 9th December 2009 at 11:30 PM, Home Minister Chidambaram declared that a resolution would be moved to create a separate Telangana state.
In this story, this is where we take our first pause. There were several players in this political drama, and each one had his motivations and aspirations. Lets look at each individually -
1. KCR - For KCR, unfortunately, this was not just a fast unto death. It was a battle of political survival. After two days of fasting, he had broken his fast by consuming fruit juice. Immediately, he was disowned by the Telangana movement, and his fast was decried as a political stunt. The movement would go on unabated, the students cried. KCR was left with no choice. He was being sacrificed on the altar of the new state. He needed to continue his fast, or he would lose political relevance. Under threat, he continued his fast.
With every passing day, he found that the movement was gathering strength. He called out to the central Government desperately, looking for an olive branch to end the fast. The students had decided to go for a new state, and KCR was only a vehicle. As luck would have it, the Government blinked, and the Home Minister announced a new state.
2. Chandrababu Naidu (CBN) - Incidentally, CBN had a very important role to play in this struggle, as he remained, for two decades, the most powerful force in the way of a separate Telangana. However, he had also decided, in the 2009 elections, to support a separate Telangana state. This reduced the last opposition to the new state, but alas, the strategy here was different. While CBN was in-principle supporting a new state, nobody knew that he was hoping deep-within that this would not happen. CBN is a leader with a strong holding in the prosperous Coastal Andhra and arid Rayalseema regions, and both these regions had made extensive investments in Hyderabad. A separate Telangana would ensure that he loses Hyderabad, that he had carefully built from 1994 to 2004 as CM of the state. Most importantly, media, politics and bureaucracy was dominated by Andhra-ites. A separate Telangana would make all these people rudderless. He could not let that happen. A political strategist par excellence, he knew that it would be better to support a new state since he knew that it was highly unlikely, and keep all his options open. To his utter dismay, however, the Government of India called his bluff.
3. Congress - The Congress party has been constantly battered since its extraordinary win in 2009. After losing its biggest leader to a helicopter crash, they have seen some difficult administrative situations, and the new Chief Minister has been unable to keep the faction-ridden party together. Rosaiah has been waiting for high-command to make all important decisions, and had been unable to keep the state law-and-order situation under control during those deciding eleven days. The situation was rapidly spinning out of control, and the world watched helplessly as AP was breaking into civil war. When the Government of India decided to split the state, Rosaiah watched helplessly, as much a victim as the other 8 crore AP-ites.
The Congress leadership decided to play a difficult balancing act. As they watched all the political parties rally behind KCR, and CBN also confirming that he would support a separate Telangana, they knew that it was time to give a separate state. If not, they would alienate a powerful vote bank of about 75 MLA seats, and some strong muslim constituencies. On the other hand, if they invited KCR for talks to Delhi, he would run away with the entire credit for the movement, and take all votes with him. The other political parties, students, maoists were also entering the movement, and it was growing in strength. And in any case, a separate Telangana state has been in their manifesto both in 2004 and in 2009.
They declared a new state in the night, knowing fully well that they would take all credit and all blame if this move were to backfire.
4. Government of India - The Govt. of India has the mandate to execute a decision of this magnitude. For a new state to be created, only a simple majority in both houses of the parliament would suffice. GoI could easily muster this strength, and ensure that the new state would be a stable entity. Constitutionally, the views of the state government's views are not binding in the formation of a new state, and the Govt. of India has a clear mandate to create new states.
As they saw all political parties lobbying behind the movement, they thought a consensus was already in place, and hence a state could be created. In hindsight, how naive!
The argument for a separate Telangana is fairly solid -
Over the past few decades, Telangana had not been getting its share of development, and all fund flows were focussed towards other parts of Andhra. In a nett. summary, Telangana had not developed at the expense of the other states. Research also shows that the per capita income of a split state is often better than its parent. Even politically unstable states like Jharkand have shown strong development indicators compared to when it was part of a parent state. References are here. Data shows that even Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal have a higher per capita income than Orissa and Uttar Pradesh respectively. Moreover, for people who believe that it is a battle for Hyderabad, Vizag has a higher per-capita income than Hyderabad, and is fast developing into Andhra's industrial hub. Coastal Andhra has a much larger coastline than most states in the country, and all the ports are located here. The rice bowl and tobacco industry is focussed here. In a radius of 50 square kilometres from Vijaywada, a population of about 1 crore resides. The entrepreneurs, media and the politicians are all from coastal Andhra. Fundamentally, both regions would be much better off separated because Andhra won't have to carry the weight of underdeveloped Telangana, and Telangana would have a chance to take care of itself.
In nett. analysis, one can decipher the following - The Govt. of India clearly jumped the gun in granting a new state without any consensus. Political reasons may be many, but it was clear that a process of broad-based consultation was adopted, and there was no direct interaction with the state leaders on a matter of this magnitude.
It is time to revert to our chronology of events.
As soon as a new state was announced, protests filled the air across Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. They had made extensive investments in Hyderabad, and were not ready to give up the city. They insisted that Congress leadership did not understand the pulse of the people, and unfortunately, they began mounting similar pressure on the Government. Prominent among this movement was Lagadapati Rajagopal (also founder of the billion dollar Lanco group), Anam Vivekananda Reddy, and others . At this point, CBN decided to do a backflip, and cancelled their support to the telangana movement. Chiranjeevi, leader of another prominent political party, also took the "United Andhra" stand.
Here, we stop and do another analysis of their political strategy. Slowly, each leader started opening his political cards.
1. Congress - stuck in a difficult place, Congress was finding that large parts of the state were up in arms. Clearly, this was a battle for Hyderabad, not for Telangana. The realtor lobby and business lobby had started funding protests in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. It was getting difficult to manage, and Andhra Pradesh was breaking into several factions and divisions. Pressure was mounting on a impotent state administration, and the national leadership is only taking rearguard action. The party now had two options -
a) to go ahead with the move to create Andhra and Telangana, give several sops to industry in both regions, and ensure that everyone is happy
b) to split into two regions, but keep hyderabad still in the balance - this would give them a better bargaining chip for the future
c) the most dangerous ploy is to revert their decision to create a Telangana state, because Congress would most-certainly lose in this route. This is also a dangerous administrative ploy, since the Government of india should not be taking u-turns at the drop of a hat does not set a healthy precedent. It has repercussions in financials markets and risk perception of the country, which can directly translate to billions of dollars in interest rates, etc.
2. TDP - TDP, headed by CBN, had reversed their support for Telangana, and was playing a wait and watch strategy. Since he had reverted his support for a separate Telangana, he was rapidly losing credibility, and under pressure to take a stand.
a) Being a regional party leader, his funding would depend upon the prosperous Andhra regions. His political support base is also in those parts. One option for him was to support a United Andhra, where he would gain in the Andhra regions, but be wiped out in the Telangana regions
b) If he supported the Telangana region, he takes KCR on headlong, and unfortunately, he might not win that battle. In result, it ensures that he loses both Andhra and Telangana
3. KCR - the clear winner so far was KCR, who was being credited with the new state formation after his fast. He was being elevated to the status of the icon, and was now well-positioned to be the leader of the new state. Would people remember that they had virtually voted him out six months back, and that till November, he had lost all credibility in the eyes of the people?
4. Chiranjeevi - the leader of an insignificant party, he choses the united Andhra plank because most of his support comes from the prosperous East Godavari and West Godavari districts in Coastal Andhra, and he does not have an option.
In the midst of all this chaos, late last night, Govt. of India, represented by P Chidambaram, makes their decision. They announce a "lack of consensus on the telangana issue", and promise to work towards developing broad-based consensus and building a state gradually. A u-turn!
This conclusion, as on today, appears to be unmitigated disaster. First of all, when the decision was taken to split the state, there was no consensus and no committee appointed to deliberate on the matter. One can, if at all, accept that the ruling party has taken the sentiments of the people into account, and give them the benefit of doubt. If that was true, then their assessment of ground realities have been very far from reality, and they should have learnt a lesson from this. Further, when the first decision was taken, there was absolutely no accountability and no ownership. Neither the party high command not the Prime Minister has made direct statements in this matter, and there is a constant and conscious effort to side-step the issue and not take a stand. What irony, that this is the best time to display some political character and leadership, and there seems to be no-one willing to stand up for it!
When the decision was reversed, again there was no consultation and no process followed. One might be able to forgive a newbie home minister like Chidambaram, but what was the bureaucracy doing? Is it not their job to guide the government in the right direction? Again, no accountability, no leadership, no direction.
The other political parties are equally, if not more guilty. The Government had taken a stand based on their explicit support, which they immediately reversed. The battle is for political supremacy, without a thought in mind for that daily wage worker, that rickshaw-puller, that auto-driver, that vegetable vendor who is losing weeks of income due to continuous strikes and bandhs. I can safely say that business in Andhra Pradesh does not need Hyderabad as much as it needs stability. We can take care of ourselves, and our business goes on despite these politicians, not because of them. But we can do without strikes for weeks on end.
This battle is clearly for maintaining political turf, and I can safely say this because I find no other reason why people want Andhra to stay united. Numbers suggest that smaller states are better equipped to take care of themselves and serve their own interest. What other reason can possibly exist for keeping the state together?
I have no doubt in my mind that as on today, there is no political party that has emerged the winner. KCR has lost his credibility years ago, and everyone knows that he is only being used in this campaign. CBN has changed his mind too often to have any credibility. Congress seems least scathed, purely because when you have no leadership, and no pretension of any leadership, you have very little to lose. The Government of India has proven a failure in handling an issue of such complexity, and also ensured that the whole world now knows that we are incapable of making a strong decision and sticking by it.
Over the past few weeks, I have had the good fortune to speak to several politicians, small sections of the media, bureaucrats and good friends in the state, all who have had strong viewpoints on the Telangana state issue. And I, despite not being "genetically" an Andhra-ite, have lived in Hyderabad since my birth, and can definitively claim that I know more about the city and state than over 99% of the populace. I might not have "andhra-sentiments", but I have had the privilege of being intimately associated with the growth of the city over the past few decades, and I happen to know my facts, atleast broadly. This post is a detailed summary of all my thoughts.
Telangana is a region that is several millennia old, and even finds mention in treatises like Mahabharata. This region saw the glorious rule of the Kakatiyas, Satavahanas, before being taken over by islamic rulers of the 14th and 15th century. Over the centuries, and until the early part of this century, Telangana, headquartered by Hyderabad, has been the seat of the Brahmani, Mughal, Qutub Shahi and finally, the Asaf Jahi dynasties.
Upon independence and the abolition of the nizam rule, Andhra Pradesh became a part of the state of Madras briefly, and then, after a fast-unto-death by Potti Sriramulu, was confirmed to be a separate state in 1953, and further to the recommendations of the State Reorganization Committee, was created into a united Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Somehow, there has always been resentment towards the unification of the state, and it has manifested itself in several struggles over the last fifty years.
Arguably, the most serious threat to unified Andhra Pradesh was the movement of 1969, where parties such as the Telangana Praja Samiti (headed by later chief minister Channa Reddy), was involved in a serious struggle that took over 350 lives. However, the next elections saw them defeated, and the cause was subdued for several years after that. Most of the TPS leaders moved into the ranks of the Congress, and joined mainstream politics in the state.
Since 1990, this movement saw a revival, with several parties speaking in isolated whispers about a separate telangana state. The reasons of this were many. The new economic revolution triggered by the 1991 reforms had begun to hit the state, and, under the visionary leadership of Chandrababu Naidu, Hyderabad was developing into a sprawling metropolis. Union Government had been gradually weakened by the lack of a strong leader of the stature of Indira Gandhi. There was room for a revolution, this time driven by political gains, and a grassroots movement began to take shape. A new force began to emerge in the early part of the 21st century - the Telangana Rastriya Samiti, headed by K Chandrasekhara Rao (KCR). Eccentric, strategist, mercurial yet ineffective, these are a few names that describe KCR. Over the past few years, he has used the sentiment to stay relevant, but has been unable to fashion this into a revolution that could create a new state. By 2004, Congress also had put a separate Telangana on its agenda. In 2009, Telugu Desam Party, the principal opposition, had also decided for Telangana, and was contesting the election under the banner of a "Grand Alliance". Unfortunately, this alliance was routed in the elections, and Congress, under the charismatic YS Rajasekhara Reddy, came back to power, and the Telangana issue was buried under the euphoria of a new Congress era led by another generation of the Gandhis.
Life had its twists, and in another three months, the strongest Andhra Congress leader in the last half-century, YSR, tragically perished in a helicopter accident, creating a leadership void which the next CM, Konijeti Rosaiah, was unable to fulfill. AP saw more carnage, in the form of the worst floods in a century, and then, one fine morning in late November, that phoenix KCR announced that he would be going on a fast-unto-death for a separate Telangana state. The movement was energized again!
"A politician goes hungry to redraw India's map", announced the New York times, as the world watched as a single man put pressure on the central government with every passing day to carve out a separate state. A weak administration watched helplessly, as the Osmania University students put their might behind the movement, and Hyderabad city was set on fire. Eleven days later, on the night of 9th December 2009 at 11:30 PM, Home Minister Chidambaram declared that a resolution would be moved to create a separate Telangana state.
In this story, this is where we take our first pause. There were several players in this political drama, and each one had his motivations and aspirations. Lets look at each individually -
1. KCR - For KCR, unfortunately, this was not just a fast unto death. It was a battle of political survival. After two days of fasting, he had broken his fast by consuming fruit juice. Immediately, he was disowned by the Telangana movement, and his fast was decried as a political stunt. The movement would go on unabated, the students cried. KCR was left with no choice. He was being sacrificed on the altar of the new state. He needed to continue his fast, or he would lose political relevance. Under threat, he continued his fast.
With every passing day, he found that the movement was gathering strength. He called out to the central Government desperately, looking for an olive branch to end the fast. The students had decided to go for a new state, and KCR was only a vehicle. As luck would have it, the Government blinked, and the Home Minister announced a new state.
2. Chandrababu Naidu (CBN) - Incidentally, CBN had a very important role to play in this struggle, as he remained, for two decades, the most powerful force in the way of a separate Telangana. However, he had also decided, in the 2009 elections, to support a separate Telangana state. This reduced the last opposition to the new state, but alas, the strategy here was different. While CBN was in-principle supporting a new state, nobody knew that he was hoping deep-within that this would not happen. CBN is a leader with a strong holding in the prosperous Coastal Andhra and arid Rayalseema regions, and both these regions had made extensive investments in Hyderabad. A separate Telangana would ensure that he loses Hyderabad, that he had carefully built from 1994 to 2004 as CM of the state. Most importantly, media, politics and bureaucracy was dominated by Andhra-ites. A separate Telangana would make all these people rudderless. He could not let that happen. A political strategist par excellence, he knew that it would be better to support a new state since he knew that it was highly unlikely, and keep all his options open. To his utter dismay, however, the Government of India called his bluff.
3. Congress - The Congress party has been constantly battered since its extraordinary win in 2009. After losing its biggest leader to a helicopter crash, they have seen some difficult administrative situations, and the new Chief Minister has been unable to keep the faction-ridden party together. Rosaiah has been waiting for high-command to make all important decisions, and had been unable to keep the state law-and-order situation under control during those deciding eleven days. The situation was rapidly spinning out of control, and the world watched helplessly as AP was breaking into civil war. When the Government of India decided to split the state, Rosaiah watched helplessly, as much a victim as the other 8 crore AP-ites.
The Congress leadership decided to play a difficult balancing act. As they watched all the political parties rally behind KCR, and CBN also confirming that he would support a separate Telangana, they knew that it was time to give a separate state. If not, they would alienate a powerful vote bank of about 75 MLA seats, and some strong muslim constituencies. On the other hand, if they invited KCR for talks to Delhi, he would run away with the entire credit for the movement, and take all votes with him. The other political parties, students, maoists were also entering the movement, and it was growing in strength. And in any case, a separate Telangana state has been in their manifesto both in 2004 and in 2009.
They declared a new state in the night, knowing fully well that they would take all credit and all blame if this move were to backfire.
4. Government of India - The Govt. of India has the mandate to execute a decision of this magnitude. For a new state to be created, only a simple majority in both houses of the parliament would suffice. GoI could easily muster this strength, and ensure that the new state would be a stable entity. Constitutionally, the views of the state government's views are not binding in the formation of a new state, and the Govt. of India has a clear mandate to create new states.
As they saw all political parties lobbying behind the movement, they thought a consensus was already in place, and hence a state could be created. In hindsight, how naive!
The argument for a separate Telangana is fairly solid -
Over the past few decades, Telangana had not been getting its share of development, and all fund flows were focussed towards other parts of Andhra. In a nett. summary, Telangana had not developed at the expense of the other states. Research also shows that the per capita income of a split state is often better than its parent. Even politically unstable states like Jharkand have shown strong development indicators compared to when it was part of a parent state. References are here. Data shows that even Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal have a higher per capita income than Orissa and Uttar Pradesh respectively. Moreover, for people who believe that it is a battle for Hyderabad, Vizag has a higher per-capita income than Hyderabad, and is fast developing into Andhra's industrial hub. Coastal Andhra has a much larger coastline than most states in the country, and all the ports are located here. The rice bowl and tobacco industry is focussed here. In a radius of 50 square kilometres from Vijaywada, a population of about 1 crore resides. The entrepreneurs, media and the politicians are all from coastal Andhra. Fundamentally, both regions would be much better off separated because Andhra won't have to carry the weight of underdeveloped Telangana, and Telangana would have a chance to take care of itself.
In nett. analysis, one can decipher the following - The Govt. of India clearly jumped the gun in granting a new state without any consensus. Political reasons may be many, but it was clear that a process of broad-based consultation was adopted, and there was no direct interaction with the state leaders on a matter of this magnitude.
It is time to revert to our chronology of events.
As soon as a new state was announced, protests filled the air across Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. They had made extensive investments in Hyderabad, and were not ready to give up the city. They insisted that Congress leadership did not understand the pulse of the people, and unfortunately, they began mounting similar pressure on the Government. Prominent among this movement was Lagadapati Rajagopal (also founder of the billion dollar Lanco group), Anam Vivekananda Reddy, and others . At this point, CBN decided to do a backflip, and cancelled their support to the telangana movement. Chiranjeevi, leader of another prominent political party, also took the "United Andhra" stand.
Here, we stop and do another analysis of their political strategy. Slowly, each leader started opening his political cards.
1. Congress - stuck in a difficult place, Congress was finding that large parts of the state were up in arms. Clearly, this was a battle for Hyderabad, not for Telangana. The realtor lobby and business lobby had started funding protests in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. It was getting difficult to manage, and Andhra Pradesh was breaking into several factions and divisions. Pressure was mounting on a impotent state administration, and the national leadership is only taking rearguard action. The party now had two options -
a) to go ahead with the move to create Andhra and Telangana, give several sops to industry in both regions, and ensure that everyone is happy
b) to split into two regions, but keep hyderabad still in the balance - this would give them a better bargaining chip for the future
c) the most dangerous ploy is to revert their decision to create a Telangana state, because Congress would most-certainly lose in this route. This is also a dangerous administrative ploy, since the Government of india should not be taking u-turns at the drop of a hat does not set a healthy precedent. It has repercussions in financials markets and risk perception of the country, which can directly translate to billions of dollars in interest rates, etc.
2. TDP - TDP, headed by CBN, had reversed their support for Telangana, and was playing a wait and watch strategy. Since he had reverted his support for a separate Telangana, he was rapidly losing credibility, and under pressure to take a stand.
a) Being a regional party leader, his funding would depend upon the prosperous Andhra regions. His political support base is also in those parts. One option for him was to support a United Andhra, where he would gain in the Andhra regions, but be wiped out in the Telangana regions
b) If he supported the Telangana region, he takes KCR on headlong, and unfortunately, he might not win that battle. In result, it ensures that he loses both Andhra and Telangana
3. KCR - the clear winner so far was KCR, who was being credited with the new state formation after his fast. He was being elevated to the status of the icon, and was now well-positioned to be the leader of the new state. Would people remember that they had virtually voted him out six months back, and that till November, he had lost all credibility in the eyes of the people?
4. Chiranjeevi - the leader of an insignificant party, he choses the united Andhra plank because most of his support comes from the prosperous East Godavari and West Godavari districts in Coastal Andhra, and he does not have an option.
In the midst of all this chaos, late last night, Govt. of India, represented by P Chidambaram, makes their decision. They announce a "lack of consensus on the telangana issue", and promise to work towards developing broad-based consensus and building a state gradually. A u-turn!
This conclusion, as on today, appears to be unmitigated disaster. First of all, when the decision was taken to split the state, there was no consensus and no committee appointed to deliberate on the matter. One can, if at all, accept that the ruling party has taken the sentiments of the people into account, and give them the benefit of doubt. If that was true, then their assessment of ground realities have been very far from reality, and they should have learnt a lesson from this. Further, when the first decision was taken, there was absolutely no accountability and no ownership. Neither the party high command not the Prime Minister has made direct statements in this matter, and there is a constant and conscious effort to side-step the issue and not take a stand. What irony, that this is the best time to display some political character and leadership, and there seems to be no-one willing to stand up for it!
When the decision was reversed, again there was no consultation and no process followed. One might be able to forgive a newbie home minister like Chidambaram, but what was the bureaucracy doing? Is it not their job to guide the government in the right direction? Again, no accountability, no leadership, no direction.
The other political parties are equally, if not more guilty. The Government had taken a stand based on their explicit support, which they immediately reversed. The battle is for political supremacy, without a thought in mind for that daily wage worker, that rickshaw-puller, that auto-driver, that vegetable vendor who is losing weeks of income due to continuous strikes and bandhs. I can safely say that business in Andhra Pradesh does not need Hyderabad as much as it needs stability. We can take care of ourselves, and our business goes on despite these politicians, not because of them. But we can do without strikes for weeks on end.
This battle is clearly for maintaining political turf, and I can safely say this because I find no other reason why people want Andhra to stay united. Numbers suggest that smaller states are better equipped to take care of themselves and serve their own interest. What other reason can possibly exist for keeping the state together?
I have no doubt in my mind that as on today, there is no political party that has emerged the winner. KCR has lost his credibility years ago, and everyone knows that he is only being used in this campaign. CBN has changed his mind too often to have any credibility. Congress seems least scathed, purely because when you have no leadership, and no pretension of any leadership, you have very little to lose. The Government of India has proven a failure in handling an issue of such complexity, and also ensured that the whole world now knows that we are incapable of making a strong decision and sticking by it.
Labels: andhra pradesh, chandrababu naidu, KCR, telangana, YSR
posted by shravan at
Thursday, December 24, 2009
links to this post
