P.C. Alexander

Feb.24 : Some of the recent decisions taken by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and the Congress, the main political party leading the coalition, have come in for sharp criticism — that certain healthy principles that must be observed by the ruling party in a parliamentary democracy have been sacrificed in order to retain power in some states. The UPA and the Congress has also been criticised for setting bad precedents.

In this context, two decisions deserve special attention. The first is the tolerance shown by the UPA to D.D. Lapang, the chief minister of Meghalaya, who elevated three other politicians to the rank and status of chief minister. The second is the turn around on the public announcement by Union home minister P. Chidambaram on behalf of the Union Cabinet on December 9, 2009, that the process for the formation of a separate state of Telangana would be initiated on the introduction and passage of a separate resolution in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. Let us examine the impact of these two decisions on the concept of principled politics in our democracy. Meghalaya is one of the smallest states of India. In its 60-member Assembly, the Congress-led coalition has 37 MLAs, of whom 28 belong to the Congress. The state already has two deputy chief ministers, for which there can be little justification except that it would help prevent dissidence in the party. However, conferring the rank of chief minister on three more MLAs — with all the perks which go with this designation, like cars, security, personal staff, bungalow etc — can only be described as a shameless attempt to silence the chief minister’s rivals who are clamoring for power. As the leader of the coalition running the government, the Congress should have firmly rejected a blatantly unjustified proposal like this from Dr Lapang, but it seems that the main concern of the Congress was to retain its ministerial chairs at any cost. One of the four people with the rank of chief minister is state Congress president Friday Lyngdoh! It is unfortunate that the Congress has chosen to justify this unprincipled arrangement by stating that the executive power remains with Dr Lapang while the other three have only protocol privileges and perks that come with the office. The danger in resorting to this type of compromise is that it sets a precedent for other states in similar situations. NOW LET me turn to the latest decision of the UPA government to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Srikrishna whose terms of reference allow reopening the whole issue of a separate Telangana state. Clause I of the terms of reference announced for the committee on February 3, 2010, defines the committee’s duty as “examining the situation in the state of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the demand for a separate state of Telangana as well as the demand for maintaining the present status of a united Andhra Pradesh”.  The reason given for the appointment of the Srikrishna Committee is that there is no consensus among the members of Andhra Pradesh’s Legislative Assembly on the bill for a separate state of Telangana. But the Centre should have known this when it announced its decision to initiate action for the formation of a separate state of Telangana. A week after its announcement, 147 legislators and many members of Parliament from the coastal districts and Rayalaseema submitted their resignations. The UPA panicked about losing power in Andhra Pradesh and on December 23, 2009, announced that no action would be taken until all parties arrive at a consensus. The Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and other parties agitating for a separate state of Telangana saw this as another instance of national parties’ shifting their stand on the Telangana issue. Without going into the merits of the stand taken by the Telangana people and the people of the rest of Andhra Pradesh, let us examine the legal correctness of the stand now taken by the Congress-led UPA about the need for a consensus on the Telangana issue. Article 3 of the Constitution, which lays down the procedure for creating new states, does not state that concurrence of the majority in state Assembly is a necessary condition for it. It only states that the state Assembly may express its views on the proposed legislation for the formation of a new state within such a period as may be specified by the President. Before taking any decision on the creation of new states the President will, of course, seek the advice of the council of ministers and, hence, the ruling party, or coalition, at the Centre will be the real decision-making body. In spite of this, the UPA does not want to take the risk of losing power in the coastal and Rayalaseema regions.  If the Centre thinks that it can buy time till the Srikrishna Committee submits its recommendations, then they are mistaken because their new stand will be seen by the people as an attempt to avoid its responsibilities. A decision on formation of a new state is essentially a political decision and the party in power at the Centre cannot avoid it. It can try to delay it, though that can, especially in situations like the present one in Andhra Pradesh, prove to be very costly. A sad feature of the committee’s task is that mass protests and violence indulged in by supporters of both sides will deprive it of the tension-free atmosphere badly needed for its smooth working. While protests and demonstrations are intensifying tension in Andhra Pradesh, various far-fetched suggestions have been emerging from politicians and academics about finding a via media between the demands of the Telangana people and of the other regions in the state. One such suggestion is creating a state of Telangana in a way that Hyderabad remains the capital of both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. This solution can hardly satisfy the aspirations of those who have been agitating ever since Independence, and even before that, for a separate identity through a full-fledged state. If by any chance the suggestion of a state within a state is implemented, there will be demands for similar arrangements from other regions as well. Such solutions apart from distorting the concept of federalism will create several new problems. The decision-makers should be careful that in finding a solution for today’s problems, they do not create new ones for tomorrow.P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra

P.C. Alexander