The disgraceful proceedings in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly on Thursday flowed from the wider politics in support of the demand for a separate Telangana whose dominant motif has been the unleashing of violence on the streets. But the demands of politics, or even its compulsions, preclude non-peaceful means of expression. If

this were not the case, we shall have to endorse terrorism in the name of political action. And since this is the case, premeditated destruction or violence in the pursuit of political or ideological aims have generally led to the initiating of institutional action by the organs of the state, and no one is too high to evade penal proceedings. To wit, some of the best known names of public life in India have been the object of court proceedings following the December 1992 events in Ayodhya. Many have been sentenced to prison for causing mayhem inside a legislative chamber, including in Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the MLAs and MLCs who sought to intimidate governor E.S.L. Narsimhan, lunged at him, snatched papers from his hands as he addressed the joint session and attacked legislative colleagues who criticised their behaviour, stand self-condemned in the wider context of democratic practice. It needs no acquaintance with the rules of procedure to suggest that legislators who engaged in such conduct invite exemplary punishment. The fundamental rule of democracy is “no violence”. In this instance, the institution of the state legislature, its two presiding officers as well as the high office of governor were all subjected to hooligan-style assault. To his credit, even amid such mayhem, the governor showed courage and poise and managed to finish his speech before withdrawing.
The great pity is that the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly refrained from condemning the ugliness witnessed or even expressing concern over the unwarranted form of political action on display although members of his party were so conspicuously associated with the trouble-making. Nor is there any record of the Telugu Desam chief expressing regret even privately to the governor and the presiding officers. It cannot be overemphasised that the responsibilities of Opposition stalwarts in a democratic environment are hardly any less than those of leading figures of the ruling side in keeping institutions in good trim.
The severest criticism of Thursday’s events is without prejudice to the demand for a separate Telangana. But proponents of a new state will ill serve their cause if they become synonymous with irresponsible, thoughtless and destabilising action. Political whispers are audible in Andhra Pradesh that Thursday’s developments logically lend themselves to President’s Rule. It is hoped that this does not come to pass. The aspirations of a federal India are best served when grievances on the ground are allowed to be settled in a peaceful manner locally, without intervention by the Centre, unless this becomes absolutely unavoidable. It is a pity that the Centre has taken so long to arrive at a sound, practical understanding of steps to be taken in the face of the demand for a new state. The unfortunate implication of this is that the proponents of the new Telangana will be given a handle to bring public life to a standstill in Hyderabad. We can only hope they will have the good sense to eschew recourse to violent methods. The sooner the stasis ends the better. Not a little responsibility rests with the Congress leadership and the UPA government.