The birth of many states has been bloody

Among political pundits and observers of the national scene, there is a consensus emerging on the decision by the UPA government to grant the demand for Telangana statehood. There is a virtual unanimity on the view that Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress has shot herself in the foot. After her carefully calibrated handling of political matters over the last few years she has finally faltered and made a monumental mistake.

This error of judgment, say the wise ones, is on the same scale as Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to get the lock on the Babri Masjid opened or intervening in the Shah Bano case and has the same potential to create long term problems for the party as well as the country. Sonia Gandhi, she of the inner voice and fine political acumen has shown she is human after all.

Though the decision was handed down by the government, there is little doubt that it was Sonia who was behind it. She was apparently unconvinced by the pleas of her representatives from the other regions of Andhra Pradesh not to give in to the blackmail of T Chandrashekhar Rao whose hunger strike was causing sleepless nights to the local administration. TCR is a known maverick who in the past was with the Telugu Desam and even allied with the Congress, leaving when the late Y S Reddy backtracked on the Telangana demand after committing to it. But TCR’s own position within his flock is tenuous and he is by no means a major folk hero with the people of Telangana. Many observers have argued that he would have been happy with an assurance of a committee to study the demands and at best table a resolution on the floor of the Andhra Pradesh assembly. This is the oldest trick in the Indian political and administrative book—appoint one more committee and buy time, hoping that in the end the matter fizzles out.

The history of the putative Telangana state is filled with such tactics. Right from the time that it was dragged into the the unified Andhra Pradesh state the people of the region have been fobbed off with one assurance after another. As far back as the 1960s Telangana was a hot button issue and if it had become dormant over the years, with intermittent outbursts of violence, it was because the Congress co-opted all its known leaders one after the other.

But the problem simmered on. Contrary to what is assumed, the fight for a separate state is not because of merely a cultural assertion of identity, but because the region strongly thinks it has been shortchanged by politicians from other parts. Lack of development is the key grievance here.

Some analysts have pointed out that governments should not give in to the politics of blackmail. That would be true in an ideal world. But right from the time when Andhra Pradesh was formed because Potti Sriramulu went on a fatal hunger strike, violence has become the only currency that works. Next May we will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the formation of Maharashtra. Homage will be paid to the martyrs of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, who have a monument at Flora Fountain commemorating their sacrifice. They died fighting for the formation of the state and for the inclusion of Bombay city in Maharashtra though Gujarat could have laid a claim to it too. Six decades later both states are prospering.

The people of the new Telangana state, as and when it will be formed, will see TCR and others as martyrs. The rest of the country is shocked at the sporadic violence that is breaking out all over Andhra Pradesh; the reaction is natural. The bigger “fear” is that there will be demands for more such states all over the country. The spectre of the Balkanisation of India looms; it is a ghost that has never really gone away from the recesses of the Indian mind ever since the nation-state was formed.

Should we be mortally scared that the country will break up? Are scores of small states are surefire recipe for a future disaster? Will the centre hold? These were the fears expressed even when the linguistic states were formed, much against Jawaharlal Nehru’s wishes. If anything the Indian state has emerged stronger. Many small states have sprung up after the first reorganisation—some, like Uttaranchal have found their feet, others like Jharkhand have proved to be failures. There is no one size fits all theory.

As for Sonia Gandhi, we do not know what her calculations were. History could show that she took a hasty call; on the other hand she may have finally decided to put a halt to the “death by committee” route and finally taken a long-pending decision. It can never be a win-win situation. But one way or the other, we can be sure that the formation of the state of Telangana, whenever it does happen, does not spell the end of India as we know it even if there is blood on the streets today.