Telangana Demand And Srikrishna Committee Report: Whether Decision Will Be ‘Paramilitary’ Or ‘Parliamentary’? Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar • January 5, 2011 10:38 pm • Focus, India and States, Polity • 2 comments In the wake of New Year and submission of report by Srikrishna Committee, the people seek to know whether it will be a Paramilitary decision or Parliamentary decision. Justice B. N. Srikrishna, former Judge of Supreme Court, heading the Committee for Consultations on the situation in Andhra Pradesh has declared that his committee report would be ‘impartial and professional’ report. The Chairman claimed that report would seek to achieve the ‘highest satisfaction of the maximum number of people’. He also hoped that the report would seek to bring about a ‘permanent solution’ to the statehood demand. Two inferences are possible from this ‘declaration’ by the Committee a day before giving the report. First- permanent solution to the statehood demand means giving statehood to Telangana itself. Second – highest satisfaction of the maximum number of people can be achieved only by giving rights to people of different regions over the capital Hyderabad. The mechanism to realize these two aspects is perhaps ‘the suspense’. Stating that their report would be ‘impartial and professional’ is a bit of self praise. Others are expected to describe the nature of report after it is made public. It is also a question of propriety. Though it can be expected to be ‘professional’, the ‘impartiality’ should not have been self-judged in advance. However claim of ‘impartiality’ gives rise to possibility of conceding the hidden demand for Hyderabad by Andhra and Rayalaseema. If that happens, it is doubted whether that leads to ‘highest satisfaction of the maximum number of people’. When the committee consulted in three regions, the demand for Telangana was complete and overwhelming in Telangana, while most in Rayalaseema wanted their region to be separated. In Andhra it was predominantly for status quo. Those who were against separate statehood for Telangana were in fact seeking Hyderabad, which was well understood by the committee. Perhaps ‘highest satisfaction of maximum number’ was hoped to be achieved by suggesting formation of two (or three) states with a joint capital in Hyderabad. People of Telangana would surely oppose that suggestion, but might accept for having it as joint capital for a definite time till other capitals are built, with certain safeguards for the Telangana natives. The developments after revealed report alone would decide possibility of realization of ‘satisfying maximum number’. Mr. V K Duggal, member-secretary explained that report would suggest ‘several options with their pros and cons’, which might mean options of sharing Hyderabad. A judgment of a court cannot satisfy all, which people cannot expect or judge cannot intend. Whether Justice Srikrishna, with all his caliber and commitment, will judge the genuineness of demand for Telangana state? It may not be possible that the judge would go by the mandate of Home Ministry, if any. Now the hope is that the report, perhaps the inference from the lakhs of pages of presentations received, be impartial as promised and declared by the chairperson? The track record and credibility of the chairman makes the people to believe so. People of Telangana naturally expect that impartiality would mean justification of their reasonable demand. With Rayalaseema also seeking to be separated, hope for Telangana was further consolidated. The political parties in Andhra Pradesh proved that they were not ‘integrated’ while demanding integrity, as their leaders from different regions gave different presentations to Srikrishna. The ruling party Congress and main opposition Telugudesam made it very clear to the Srikrishna Committee that they are split on regional lines and aspire to wield influence in two (or three) states. It was a clear message to the people also that these parties are neither for integration nor for separation, a pathetic political fall indeed. The committee saw that the different stake holders like Government Employees, Lawyers, Engineers, Journalists and other intelligentsia were also vertically split. In fact the Committee was closely following the developments such as boycott of courts and incidents of violence in the premises of High Court, besides growing demand for separate Bench of High Court in Andhra Region, which was seen as invisible battle for capital. The Committee must have, based on the perspectives and perceptions around, clearly seen this division among the various people, leaving the splitting of boundary to be a just formality. The seven-point terms of reference to the Committee (Government of India Committee for consultations on the situation in Andhra Pradesh) which enlarged the scope of study beyond Telangana, but limited it to just a ‘study’, are: (1) To examine the situation in the State of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the demand for a separate State of Telangana as well as the demand for maintaining the present status of a united Andhra Pradesh. (2) To review the developments in the State since its formation and their impact on the progress and development of the different regions of the State. (3) To examine the impact of the recent developments in the State on the different sections of the people such as women, children, students, minorities, other backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. (4) To identify the key issues that must be addressed while considering the matters mentioned in items (1), (2) and (3) above. (5) To consult all sections of the people, especially the political parties, on the aforesaid matters and elicit their views; to seek from the political parties and other organisations a range of solutions that would resolve the present difficult situation and promote the welfare of all sections of the people; to identify the optimal solutions for this purpose; and to recommend a plan of action and a road map. (6) To consult other organisations of civil society such as industry, trade, trade unions, farmers’ organisations, women’s organisations and students’ organisations on the aforesaid matters and elicit their views with specific reference to the all round development of the different regions of the State. (7) To make any other suggestion or recommendation that the Committee may deem appropriate. Basically they have to examine, review, identify the key issues and consult people before making appropriate suggestions or recommendations. This was in response to fierce criticism against Union Government for declaring that ‘process of formation of Telangana State has begun’ on December 9, 2009, without making sufficient consultations. Is this committee meant to answer that criticism by completing the task of ‘consultation’? News is already being flashed that depending upon the ‘specific’ recommendations of the report, the Union might appoint another committee to study and decide the action on the report. Whatever may be the purport of report, the key power of decision making lies with Union and that is absolutely political. The state has no role of any sort except to be consulted on the Bill if introduced in Parliament for carving out a new state. The TRS leader asked “can these forces halt the movement and how many they would kill?’ Amidst reports that TRS is planning another ‘fast’ seeking the withdrawal of these forces from state, the state Home Minister urged people not to entertain any misapprehensions about the forces. In democracy people prefer Parliamentary decisions to the use of paramilitary force. 29.12.2010 .