Power & Politics / Mail Today, December 28, 2009

IT HAS been an extraordinary fortnight in politics. A fortnight of extraordinary U- turns and flip- flops that has brought the once comfortably placed Congress government in Andhra Pradesh to the brink. With 13 pro- ministers resigning, the future of the K. Rosaiah- led government appears bleak. Worse, 11 of the 31 Congress Lok Sabha MPs have also threatened to resign. Should they get serious, the fallout would shake the Centre. Rebellious regional leaders are holding the Centre to ransom and the heavy hand of the Congress high command doesn’t seem to carry much weight anymore.

The crisis was triggered by two contradictory statements that P. Chidambaram made within a fortnight. The first, on December 9, announced that a new state of Telangana will be carved out of Andhra Pradesh. Exactly two weeks later, the Centre flip- flopped. Surprised? No. Because the Congress knew, the opposition knew, you, me and everyone else knew that the first statement had nothing to do with any moral, administrative or political choice that the government had made about the new state. It was dragged out of the Centre by the campaign led by K. Chandrashekhara Rao of the Telangana

Rashtriya Samithi with the overwhelming support of the people of the Telangana region. The first statement was aimed just at getting Rao, who was on the 11th day of his fast- unto- death and dangerously slipping, to give up his protest and help douse the fire that had been raging throughout Telangana.
The Centre was never serious about Telangana, just as it has never been in favour of smaller states.

The rapid growth of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh since their breakup from large unwieldy states nine years ago is proof that smaller is better. Proposals for the creation of these states lay pending with successive Congress governments for years but it was the BJP- led NDA government that brought them into existence. In the 62 years since Independence, the Congress may have changed its economic philosophy from socialist to mixed, and then to market driven, but when it comes to administration, the Grand Old Party has always been wary of carving up big states for fear of losing control over large and prosperous parts of the country.

Such fears, I think, are unfounded. Though out of power in both states now, the Congress has had long government tenures in Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, both states where along with the BJP, it remains a dominant player. Power has eluded the Congress in Jharkhand thus far but if last week’s assembly results are any indication, it may not remain so for- TRS chief Rao ever. Conceded, the small matter of Hyderabad is the biggest hurdle in the creation of Telangana but I believe that if the new state comes into being, the Congress has a better chance of coming to power than the TRS that has spearheaded the cause of the new state. Of the 294 members of the Andhra Pradesh assembly, 119 are from Telangana. Of them, the Congress contingent is the largest at 51, more than thrice as that of the TRS. If West Bengal were to be carved into smaller states, the loss would be that of the CPM and not the Congress. If a new Vidharba state were created out of Maharashtra, the Congress- NCP combine can be expected to steamroll the opposition.

Where it currently has one chief minister, the party will have two and I assume that in states where it has none, bifurcation will enable the Congress to grab at least one. Politically, it is desirable, administratively it is more viable, so why are they still hesitating? It has to do with Congress apprehensions of the longevity of the UPA government itself.

Though its ministers and party leaders strut around with the confidence of a regime that has a two- thirds majority, the UPA is still short of a simple majority and depends on support from outside, of parties like Mulayam Singh Yadav’s SP, which is opposed to breaking up large states into smaller ones. It’s a Catch- 22 situation for the UPA. There is no textbook formula that can please all the parties and whatever steps the government takes is bound to make one section happy and leave the other livid. This crisis is a test case for the high command and all evidence suggests the leadership is absolutely confused about its Telangana stand.

Sonia has kept a studied silence so far and let others decide. Wake up calls don’t come louder.
It is time she took charge and restored order. .

Power & Politics / Mail Today, December 14, 2009

WE HAVE seen political somersaults before but what was on offer last week simply took the breath away. Late on Wednesday, Union home minister P. Chidambaram announces that steps would soon be initiated for the creation of the new state. When Andhra MLAs and MPs began to resign en masse and all hell broke loose, the prime minister tells a delegation of protesting MPs from his own party that “ nothing will be done in haste”. The midnight announcement of the creation of Telangana was, if anything, an act of haste. Andhra Pradesh today is among India’s fastest growing states and the triple cities of Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Cyberabad , a showcase capital. It has culture, history, wealth and now thanks to its software prowess, global presence. It has many rich and the mighty, tobacco tycoons and the builders mafia, the mining barons and the new cyber gurus. The tussle over Telangana boils down to costly real estate and huge investments. About 200- odd Reddys have investments worth a few hundred thousand crores and want nothing to do with the new state of Telangana.

That would perhaps explain why Home Secretary G. K. Pillai was forced to issue a clarification that the issue of the capital of Telangana would be settled by the central government. These well- entrenched rulers of Hyderabad cannot afford to lose it. For they see in K. Chandrasekhara Rao a southern version of Raj Thackeray who may hound them out. So they all ganged up and forced the PMO to retract.

Until about a fortnight ago, Rao, better known as KCR, was seen as a spent force in politics. The outright rejection of the Telangana Rashtriya Samiti ( TRS) in the Lok Sabha and assembly elections in May was proof that his future as a politician was behind him. All it took was one long huddle between Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, law minister Verappa Moily and Chidambaram to resurrect him. If only they had played by the book. Constitutionally, it is the prerogative of Parliament to bifurcate states, establish new states and redraw existing state boundaries. What this means is that the government could have simply moved a resolution in Parliament, which after passage, would have been referred by the President to the affected state for its opinion. If the UPA government was serious about statehood for Telangana — it was part of the Common Minimum Programme in 2004 when the Congress wooed the TRS into the UPA — it could have simply moved such a resolution.

With the BJP also backing statehood, the Bill would have sailed through comfortably. The President could then have referred the Bill to the Andhra Pradesh KCR is winner legislature and assigned it a specified period for reverting with its views. It’s up to the President to fix the time frame: a year, two even four. That’s called buying time, a tactic that’s more important in politics than in any other sphere of life.

When Rao began his fast- untodeath, the Centre took it lightly, assuming that a man who was overwhelmingly rejected by his people just seven months ago would be no threat at all. But as Rao’s health deteriorated, the Congress clearly panicked. Chidambaram’s announcement about the creation of Telangana indicates one of two things: ( 1) the Congress high command was unaware of the sentiments of the state unit; ( 2) the party was playing a double game aimed at deceiving Rao to break his fast.

It’s my hunch that having got Rao to break his fast, the Congress will now brazen it out, knowing that if he attempts another fast- unto- death, they will book him for attempted suicide and lock him in jail.

But such deceit can boomerang. The Union home ministry admits there are already demands before it for the creation of nine new states: Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Telangana, Vindhya Pradesh, Mahakaushal, Purvanchal, Harit Pradesh and Mithilanchal.

There is nothing to stop agitations in Magadh, Seemanchal , Udayachal, Rohilkhand, Malwa, Mewar and Saurashtra. Strangely for a chief minister, Mayawati has already stated that she will be happier ruling a much smaller state.

Studies conducted by various organisations — including India Today magazine’s annual research on the State Of The States — have shown that smaller states are more viable and better governed. Whatever the outcome of the ongoing agitation, it would have done the country a lot of good if it leads to the creation of new and smaller states. Then power will be shared not by the few who hold on to it but by the many who have so far had no stake in it.