The Justice Srikrishna Committee’s voluminous report, made public by the Union home ministry on Thursday, has a discernible undercurrent in support of a united Andhra Pradesh, as against bifurcating it in response to the vociferous demand for a separate Telangana state. The committee offers six non-binding options but also

shoots down four of them as impracticable. Between Option 5, dividing the state as demanded by Telangana protagonists, and Option 6, keeping the state undivided, it plumps for the latter. The committee has made its recommendations on the basis of data it collected to show that Telangana’s development indicators, such as irrigation, agriculture, education and public employment, do not suffer too badly in comparison with Andhra. The committee does find substance in the complaints of the pro-Telangana parties on major dams and education. It points out that students from weaker sections in Telangana have fewer opportunities and also notes that health infrastructure is poor in the region.
The committee agrees in so many words that governance has failed Telangana but adds that smaller states may not be the best solution for lack of development as the experiment with Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand prove. At the same time, it also does not argue that council and constitutional guarantees have met with success in addressing identity politics.
Given this broad line of thought, it is only natural that the committee, while noting the cultural differences between the people of the two regions, concludes that the best option is to keep Andhra Pradesh united, with certain constitutional guarantees to address Telangana’s concerns. It recommends this option as workable despite the “concerns” in the areas of public employment — which is covered by an amendment to the Constitution — and water and irrigation. The panel more or less backs a united state though it notes that violence could occur when this option is exercised.
Indeed, some violence has already broken out, with students burning buses and pelting stones at policemen and businesses around the restive Osmania University. They have also called for a bandh, which will undoubtedly be the first of many. The presence of 57 companies of Central paramilitary forces will not provide a solution, nor will it assuage the fears of businesses in Hyderabad.
Supporters of Telangana statehood have argued that even the constitutionally-guaranteed mechanism covering government jobs has not resulted in equitable allocation of employment. That has been the biggest promise of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi: Jobs for youth. A statutory council backed by constitutional provisions will hardly satisfy them. The Telangana board that was promised in previous political arrangements has not worked. It will be difficult to convince Telangana’s leaders that this band-aid board will fix 60 years of hurt in what arguably was a forced marriage between the two regions.
The pro-Telangana parties have already rejected the committee and its findings. The TRS and the Joint Action Committee are holding the Centre to its promise of December 9, 2009, when home minister P. Chidambaram announced that the “process for the formation of Telangana” has been initiated. The Centre is widely seen as having gone back on that promise. The Srikrishna Committee, which was to point a way forward, appears to lead to a dead end. What is needed is honest action to address the concerns and the demands of Telangana supporters.
But if anything, what the report points to, in its comparison tables, is the truly pathetic situation in Rayalaseema, where the development indices are worse than even in Telangana. The Srikrishna panel does not make recommendations because it is constrained by the terms of reference.