KCR'S FAST WAS NOT A POTTI SRIRAMALU MOMENT

With the sudden demise of YSR [Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy],K. Rosaiah succeeded him as chief minister the very next day. KCR [K. Chandrasekhar Rao] must have felt the pendulum had swung in Rosaiah's favour. Desperate to keep himself politically relevant, he went on a hunger strike on November 29, 2009. The atmosphere in Hyderabad became surcharged. Osmania University in the heart of the city, and the centre of the agitation, was in a state of ferment.

The hunger strike was launched in Khammam jail where KCR had been detained, and continued thereafter from the morning of December 3 in a private ward in Hyderabad's Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences. With KCR's health appearing to deteriorate sharply, the Congress leadership asked Rosaiah to call an all-party meeting to figure out what was to be done regarding Telangana. Rosaiah did so on December 7. Eight major political parties of the state attended and all of them, barring the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], supported the proposal to adopt a resolution in the assembly for the creation of Telangana. The minutes of this meeting were sent to the home minister the next day.

On December 9, 2009, at about 11.30 pm, home minister P. Chidambaram issued a statement that was destined to change the state's history. It appears that he did so based on his assessment derived from intelligence reports. KCR's health was a major factor influencing the decision-making process. The other related to the role of Maoists and their sympathisers who were playing to aggravate the situation. Clearly, the government had information that led them to believe that the ground situation in Hyderabad was grave and something substantive needed to be done. The home minister must have had reason to believe that a Potti Sriramulu moment had arrived once more in Andhra Pradesh. The statement itself was evidently finalised at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's residence with Chidambaram, Pranab Mukherjee and Rosaiah present, and had apparently followed consultations with other Congress leaders.

The home minister's statement read thus: "The process of forming Telangana will be initiated. An appropriate resolution will be moved in the assembly.... We are concerned about the health of Shri K. Chandrasekhar Rao; we request him to withdraw his fast immediately. We also appeal to all concerned, especially students, to withdraw their agitation."

GOVERNMENT ALLOWED CONFUSION TO REIGN

The December 9 statement gave ammunition to both sides-Telangana supporters were convinced the new state was now only a matter of time. Proponents of a united Andhra Pradesh (Samaikya Andhra) felt betrayed and launched a counter-agitation. The protests found their echo in Parliament with MPs of the Congress and the TDP from the Telangana region supporting the December 9 statement and members from the Seemandhra region expressing grave concerns.

Jairam Ramesh Jairam Ramesh

Passions ran high across Andhra Pradesh. Ministers and MLAs from Seemandhra resigned. The statement had immediate national reverberation as well. Demands for the formation of Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Bodoland and Maru Pradesh were raised by political leaders of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Assam and Rajasthan respectively. A leading political leader of Tamil Nadu, S. Ramadoss, called for the bifurcation of that state as well. The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the prime minister twice in quick succession asking for the state to be split into four smaller states.

There appeared to be all-round confusion. On December 10, Congress spokesman Abhishek [Manu] Singhvi went on record to say, "The first logical step towards the creation of a separate state has to be an expression of consensus through a resolution of the Assembly." This drew immediate attack from TRS leaders who were perhaps aware that such a consensus was impossible. On December 12, Rosaiah was quoted in the media as having said that "he was astonished, surprised and anguished by Mr Chidambaram's statement".

He must have been pulled up because the very next day his office issued a clarification saying his astonishment and anguish was not with the December 9 statement but with "the turn of events in the aftermath of the statement".

As this clarification was being issued, Singhvi declared there was no need for a second SRC [State Reorganisation Commission], contrary to the Congress's official stance since October 2001. That very day, Pranab Mukherjee said in Kolkata, "The agitation for Telangana has been going on for 60 years. This does not mean everywhere a new state has to be created.... The state government concerned has to express its view because the President would like to know the view of the state before recommending a Bill in Parliament."

Sensing that the December 9 pronouncement had created a crisis, P. Chidambaram issued a second statement. It read: "At a meeting of all parties convened by the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh on December 7, 2009, a consensus emerged on the formation of Telangana. A statement was made on behalf of the central government on December 9. However, after the statement, the situation in Andhra Pradesh has altered. A number of parties are divided. There is need to hold wide-ranging consultations...."

JUSTICE SRIKRISHNA'S ADVICE IS IGNORED

A few weeks later, on February 3, 2010, the Government of India, undoubtedly at the instance of the home minister, announced the formation of a five-member committee headed by eminent jurist B.N. Srikrishna, who had earlier headed the inquiry into the communal riots that had rocked Bombay following the Babri demolition December 6, 1992.

The committee travelled across the state, received thousands of representations and met with hundreds of people. It submitted its report on December 30, 2010, wherein it laid out six options:

Maintaining status quo: Keeping Andhra Pradesh as it is;

Bifurcating the state into Seemandhra and Telangana regions with both developing their own capitals in due course of time. Hyderabad to be converted to a union territory like the Chandigarh model;

Dividing Andhra Pradesh into two states: one of Rayala Telangana with Hyderabad as its capital and second one of coastal Andhra Pradesh;

Dividing Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with the enlarged Hyderabad Metropolis as a separate union territory linked geographically to district Guntur in coastal Andhra via Nalgonda district in the southeast and via Mahabubnagar district in the south to Kurnool district in Rayalaseema;

Bifurcation of the state into Telangana and Seemandhra as per existing boundaries, with Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra with a new capital;

Keeping the state united and providing for creation of a statutorily empowered Telangana Regional Council for socio-economic development and political development of the Telangana region.

Its clear recommendation was option 6-no bifurcation. As far as bifurcation itself was concerned, the committee had this to say, "...after taking into account all the pros and cons, the Committee did not think it to be the most preferred, but the second best option."

Justice Srikrishna, along with his voluminous report, had also submitted a secret report. The learned judge had known my parents for over 50 years. Taking advantage of this, I took the liberty of asking him the truth regarding this perception. This is what he had to say in an e-mail communication on November 24, 2015.

Dear Jairam,

Amongst the various issues to be considered in the separation of Telangana, one important issue was the issue of security, if the state were to be bifurcated. We had called for intelligence inputs from security forces including the DG of police and IE as regards the activities of Naxalites in the areas concerned and the possible effect of the formation of Telangana on such activities.

This was particularly important as, if you remember, there had been considerable expansion of Naxalite activities in Andhra Pradesh till the government ruthlessly put them down. There was apprehension that the Naxalites may resume their activities and expand them in a newly formed state. It was to address this issue that a police report was called for. The intelligence authorities desired that their report should not be bandied about. Obviously, a police report on security citing their sources, etc. cannot be a public document. Hence, we decided to shortly state our conclusion but submitted the intelligence report as a separate secret document meant only for the Home Dept. That document is in possession of the Govt. of India. There is no other mystery about the report.

With the submission of the Srikrishna Committee report, it did appear as if the Telangana issue had been settled-there would be no bifurcation. But right through 2011 and 2012, Telangana MPs of the Congress kept up pressure in the Lok Sabha. Agitations in the state continued.

The Srikrishna Committee report was made public on January 6, 2011, at an all-party meeting convened by the home minister. The BJP, TRS and TDP boycotted the meeting. The disturbed situation in the state found an echo in a Calling Attention Motion moved in the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2011. This turned into a full-fledged debate on Telangana. Finally, the home minister made another intervention. He bemoaned that the Calling Attention Motion had become a divisive debate and reiterated his belief that the "solution to the problem...must come from the Telugu-speaking people" and called upon all political parties to go through with their process of consultation. Ironically, he admitted "the Congress has told me they have not made up their mind finally". I was a little worried because as Minister of Environment and Forests I had managed to get Hyderabad as the venue for the Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2012. Ministers from over 150 countries were expected to attend and I wondered whether I had made the right choice after all. There were many who had asked me to have the prestigious conference in Delhi itself, but I had overruled them. Fortunately, the 10-day conclave went off very smoothly.

CWC TAKES THE FINAL CALL

The CWC had a fateful meeting on July 30, 2013, where the decision was taken to finally bifurcate Andhra Pradesh and create Telangana. In retrospect, the decision to bifurcate must have been taken between December 28, 2012, and sometime in early June 2013. Not being privy to any of the discussions that took place during that period, I am unable to shed authentic light on why the decision was taken.

P. Chidambaram. Photo: Chandradeep Kumar P. Chidambaram. Photo: Chandradeep Kumar

All I have been able to piece together is that on July 1, 2013, Digvijaya Singh (who was appointed general secretary of the Congress dealing with Andhra Pradesh on June 16) made a statement in Hyderabad that the process of taking a decision on Telangana was in its final stages. On July 12, three leaders from Andhra Pradesh-Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy, Deputy CM Damodar Raja Narasimha and APCC president Botsa Satyanarayana-were asked to make presentations to a group consisting of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh; Sonia Gandhi; her political secretary, Ahmed Patel; defence minister A.K. Antony, health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, home minister Sushilkumar Shinde and Digvijaya Singh. As expected, the CM and the APCC president made a strong case against bifurcation, while the deputy CM canvassed for Telangana.

A fortnight later, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Digvijaya Singh met the trio separately in the capital. That evening, the prime minister hosted Sonia Gandhi, A.K. Antony, Sushilkumar Shinde, Ghulam Nabi Azad, P. Chidambaram, Ahmed Patel and Digvijaya Singh at his residence. This meeting clearly decided that Telangana would finally be created, later formalised by the CWC on July 30.

SO WHAT WENT WRONG?

What happened after the submission of the Srikrishna Committee report for the Congress to have decided to bifiurcate Andhra Pradesh against its recommendations?

It could well be the tragic suicides that took place during 2011 and 2012. Hyderabad particularly had become an arena for continuous agitations mounted by various organisations, most notably the Telangana Joint Action Committee (TJAC).

Ghulam Nabi Azad. Photo: Rajwant Rawat Ghulam Nabi Azad. Photo: Rajwant Rawat

It could also be that with the BJP, TDP and YSR Congress (formed in March 2011) sending letters and giving statements in favour of Telangana, the Congress felt its decision was made on the issue of the bifurcation. Chandrababu Naidu wrote to the Home Minister on December 27, 2012, urging for a quick decision in favour of Telangana. Of course, it could also well be that the Congress expected the TRS to merge with it before the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.

Telangana had 17 seats and Seemandhra 25. The Congress must have realised its prospects in Seemandhra were bleak in any case because of a 10-year anti-incumbency and because of the growing strength of the YSR Congress-it was, therefore, trying to minimise its losses. But these are all, I must emphasise, only intelligent guesses. The only thing that is incontrovertible is that P. Chidambaram's statement of December 9, 2009, had been a decisive turning point. Also indisputable is that thereafter Ghulam Nabi Azad was able to convince the Congress leadership that bifurcation would yield electoral dividends for the Congress.

