Opinion From YSR to KCR
When YSR died,the Congress mourned his loss but did not truly realise how hard it would be to fill the void left by him.
-
Share -
-
-
When YSR died,the Congress mourned his loss but did not truly realise how hard it would be to fill the void left by him. This is because YSR had made Andhra Pradesh a purely local stronghold. He used the Congress Party as his home but in Andhra Pradesh it was a local party not the branch of the national party. Had YSR lived longer,Andhra Pradesh would have become an autonomous preserve,much like Tamil Nadu has become with the DMK and the AIADMK.
The bosses in Delhi dont see it that way. They still hanker for the centralised leadership of the older Mrs Gandhis days. They think they run the country or even their party with an iron rod. Perhaps,the re-election in 2009 strengthened this belief. This is certainly what KCR discerned. He was needed while the UPA was yet to be re-elected. He was promised Telangana. But after May 2009 he was no longer needed. The Congress was home safe at the centre and in Andhra Pradesh as well thanks to YSR. KCR had to do something drastic to get his Telangana demand met.
He could see after YSRs death that the HQ in Delhi had difficulty keeping a grip on the Andhra Congress. Jagan Reddy was somehow pacified but the unrest simmered. If the Congress High Command can divide and rule,so can KCR. Thus,he used the divisions within Congress to push his point. After all,the original demand for Andhra Pradesh had been granted only after Potti Sriramulu went on fast and died. Panditji was dead against linguistic states as he feared balkanisation of India. But he was on a losing wicket and through the 1950s,many more states were carved out on linguistic lines.
Even so,the sheer cackhandedness way in which KCRs demand was granted is surprising. Someone in the HQ really thinks that they can unilaterally redraw the boundaries of India as and when. Those days are over and have been over for some twenty years. The Centre no longer has the power it used to have despite the fact that it still controls the purse strings.
In these matters,Rajiv Gandhi was very smart. He had none of the hang-ups of the earlier generations of the Dynasty about balkanisation. He was relaxed about creating new states since he could see as a person who had spent most of his life in independent India that India was here to stay and was not going to break up. Create as many states as you like,the more the better. They give good governance and local people get a sense of empowerment.
The BJP also overcame its fear of dividing India when it was in power. We now have many states in the North-East and also Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand,Uttarakhand. Then why not Telangana and Vidarabha and Bundelkhand and Gorkhaland?
Yes,of course,we can create them but we can do it only consensually and not unilaterally. The Congress leadership does not even rule its own satraps at the regional level much less other parties. So each demand has to be taken seriously but slowly. Telangana has been identifiable as a region for centuries and was the scene of a futile but bloody attempt by the Communists Party of India in the early years of independence to effect a Mao-style peasants war. It was there before Andhra Pradesh was formed. So,they should tell KCR that he will get what he wants but not anymore by blackmail tactics of fast-unto-death. There will have to be a long discussion especially about Hyderabad. Nor can we have a Chandigarh type solution of a shared capital. Geography is against it.
We need some creative thinking. Indias Federation is evolving. The curt way in which Articles 2 and 3 give the Centre the right to redraw boundaries will no longer suffice. Many more states are going to be on the anvil now. A new process has to be put in place which allows for each proposal to be debated without the farce of fasts unto death.
Perhaps a statutory commission,somewhat like the Finance Commission,which will adjudicate on all pending demands for new states,may do the trick.
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
