Opinion Telangana,beyond 2014

But there are two clear aspects of the latest Telangana episode. One,the need to acknowledge the changing Centre-state dynamic in India,and second,to examine reasons why the Congress and the BJP are happy to carve up big states. Tom-tommed as a move that would help “develop” backward regions and people,it is more a flare in the sky that makes clear how jittery both “big” parties are of potential state leaderships. Telangana goes beyond just the math for 2014. If the big parties are still to be at the centre of future coalitions,it is vital to limit regional leaders to the role of allies,so that they never compete for the big pie.

India’s first home minister,Sardar Patel,is eulogised so much not only because he played the “iron man” while dealing with the princely states,but also because he was able to pull out different instruments from his toolkit to handle different situations. The Hyderabad situation,in his view,merited strong-arm tactics,and bringing the Nizam into the Indian fold was among the more forceful actions he undertook. After that,it was about soldering together 550-odd states and ensuring that no king,prince or family could feel entitled to a fief of their own.

From then on,as a way of settling powerful,language-inspired movements,the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) acknowledged language to be a critical part of India’s identity. As linguistic division was subsumed by other passions,language ceased to be a burning issue. It was followed by the call for the creation of more states for the sake of convenience and in the interests of development. And so,in 2000,three more Hindi-speaking states were carved out.

At that time,Telangana could not be created,as the Telugu Desam Party was backing the BJP-led NDA and wouldn’t stand for bifurcating the state. The first Telangana movement,pre-Independence,is remembered as strongly communist — different from the energies that have simmered since 1956. This meant the parties in power approached it cautiously. Interestingly,when the NDA carved out three new states,the Congress Working Committee made a forceful call for a second SRC and demanded that the rules for the second stage of state formation be laid down.

But the power of regional parties has grown,and regional satraps (portrayed by supporters of the national parties as maverick and corrupt,or just dynasts) are here to stay. The year 2009 was an outlier,with a single party getting more than 200 seats. But other than that,after 1984,mandates have consistently called for a Centre that is more accommodating and able to respond to regional needs. Regional parties moving centrestage has meant they have been able to exercise the power of the veto on crucial policy moves and financial packages. Overall,though,it has signalled a fundamental change in the way India is governed. This change may sometimes have manifested itself as a “slowing” of policy decisions,but it is there — the huge complex of regional diversity,with its warts and aspirations,exerting an influence on South Block. Importantly,as regional leaderships become more sophisticated in their dealings,the regional outfit’s space has expanded. What the DMK or AIADMK think and do have an impact on voter decisions in Ballia in UP or Hoshangabad in Madhya Pradesh — that is a political reality spawned by this phase in India’s politics.

So why announce that Telangana will be a separate state after a prolonged indecision-as-distraction strategy? Y.S.R. Reddy,the late Congress chief minister,was happy to campaign on the strength of his own charisma. YSR dazzled the electorate and ended up being the Congress’s own regional satrap in a large state. His untimely death,and the fact that his family proved to be impatient to claim his “legacy”,pushed the Congress to firmly reconsider what it meant to have its own powerful regional satraps. Sheila Dikshit and Bhupinder Singh Hooda may be described as formidable in their own way,but the number of seats they hold sway over limits their influence.

The panchayat elections indicated the Congress was still a lead player in the Telugu state,with the TDP at number two. But after the Congress’s (and the BJP’s) experience in the other big states (those with more than 40 seats,as a random number),once the state left the fold of the big parties,it was almost impossible to replace the regional parties that grew in their place — consider Tamil Nadu,West Bengal,UP,Bihar and even Maharashtra,where,however small,the Shiv Sena and the NCP are factors. The Congress might have reasoned that it was not worth it to risk losing its only big state — Andhra — to a renegade Congress family that,with Andhra’s tendency to deliver sweeps,could end up sitting on a large mine of seats. A chunk of 42,if it went the way of any large regional entity,especially an ex-Congress one,could prove to be an insurmountable and embarrassing hurdle in the business of forming a government,and then running one. Better to create two states or fiefs,initially for one family each,till the others catch up. The “touring” Reddys apart,the TRS too has its bright young leaders (read,the son and daughter of its founder),who are regularly served up as the future. Both,feels the Congress,are less of a threat with smaller states as their spheres of operation. This is the long-term insurance against tendencies displayed by other troublesome big states like West Bengal,Tamil Nadu,UP and now Maharashtra.

The Telangana movement has a long history,and there is a case that it has been dealt a raw hand and kept hanging. Independent India has,over the decades,faced many ideas,some good and some bad,that first appeared threatening and later enriched the country’s diversity. The journey from Patel’s or Indira Gandhi’s and even the BJP’s instinctive centralism to accepting regional clout has been a long one,but it is now a fact of life,and varied regional flavours are to only be welcomed.

But how Telangana came about,despite the dithering and the division,and how the Congress and the BJP see in it a solution to the problem of having to deal with anyone “too big” in future,is a matter for consideration. The story of India has always been one of merging and de-merging,of large populations migrating within the country and staying put for generations. But to now deal with demands for Gorkhaland,Vidarbha,Mithila,Saurashtra,or whatever else comes up,in a way that holds long-term advantages for all of India,may require more political skill than appears to be currently at hand.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com