MLAs of various parties from the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh have sent in their resignations to press their demand for the formation of a new state. However, legislators of the same parties from other regions have taken a diametrically opposite stand. This suggests that the major political parties in the state are in a bind and are unable to come to a clear-cut understanding of the problem before them. Admittedly, the issue is ridden with complexity, and the parties in question are riding both horses.
Equivocation and opportunism come easy to politicians. They wish to be seen on the right side of public sentiment, and there can be no denying that the sentiment for bifurcation appears strong in the Telangana districts.
In the wake of the December 9, 2009 statement of the Union home minister, it is the non-Telangana legislators who had sought to resign. But after the dramatic moment passed, they continue to be in the House. There is, therefore, no knowing if the Telangana MLAs will really press for acceptance of their resignations. To them, in the normal course, that might make sense only when bifurcation is around the corner. In fresh elections in the new state, if one is created, they would not appear to be caught short and seen to be on the wrong side of history. Therefore, for now, one of the reasons that may have impelled Telangana MLAs of parties other than TRS to offer their resignations is that they do not wish to play second fiddle to this party, and keep some of the political initiative in their own hands, although the TRS may have precipitated matters.
The totality of events so far speaks of considerable political jockeying and attempt at pre-positioning by articulators of politics in the Telangana region. But it is too early to conclude that we are on the cusp of a revolutionary departure. That might have been the case if the Andhra Pradesh Assembly were really gearing up for a resolution for the bifurcation of the state under the force of circumstances.
In states which have been divided in the recent past, say Bihar and Madhya Pradesh (producing Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh respectively), there was no one single glittering prize adorned with exclusivity, as appears to be the case with Hyderabad. That made matters easier. Hyderabad falls smack in the middle of the Telangana region, but contributions to its greatness in the modern era have been made not only by the original Telangana people, but by inhabitants of all parts of Andhra Pradesh, indeed people from all parts of the country. Therefore, the status of Hyderabad, if it is going to be altered, is never going to be an easy issue to decide. For a more cogent level of debate to obtain, proponents of a new Telangana can do no better than point to factors other than sentiment that drives their cause. Will the dry and backward Telangana districts have better opportunities in a new state in terms of irrigation, building up of non-agricultural employment opportunities, infrastructure creation, educational and health facilities? Can some of these extremely relevant issues not be effectively addressed, say, under a new authority within the existing framework, underwritten by the Centre? The story of some of the recently established states, Jharkhand in particular, does not give a thumbs up to the promised land of so-called self-governance. In particular, the interest of the poorer sections have suffered from disregard.
Typically, it is certain business interests and the upwardly mobile middle classes, with the participation of political channels that funnel the cause of this aspiring new elite, that tend to drive the politics of change. But their efforts seldom make clear in what manner the interests of all classes will be served under an altered dispensation if new statehood is gained. The Telangana agitation is still to plug that gap. This is not the time for confrontation.