The Telangana blame game

High on emotions, low on pragmatism

Two years have passed since the Union Home Minister had made that fateful announcement on Telangana on December 9, 2009. Since then political and social events have overtaken the Telugu society in such a profound manner that the state is still struggling with the intractable issue.
Separate state supporters understandably feel cheated that the Centre failed to keep up its commitment. They underline the fact that the statement was made in the floor of the Parliament. They see a conspiracy by vested interests of Andhra origin for the promise getting stuck in a bottomless pit.
But a dispassionate review of the events leading to the announcement and subsequent developments probably gives us an idea of what led the UPA government to renege on its assurance. The December 9 statement is of course crystal clear:
“The process of forming the state of Telangana will be initiated. An appropriate resolution will be moved In the state assembly.”
When Chidambaram made this rather straightforward statement, he was clearly under the impression that there was a general political consensus among all parties. The reason for this belief was the minutes of the all-party-meet sent to him earlier.
Technically speaking, however, there was no unanimity on the issue of division of state since ruling Congress, MIM and Lok Satta did not give their clear opinion on the issue, while CPM actually opposed the division. But what seems to have weighed in the mind of the Centre was TDP’s ready acceptance to the proposal.
But when TDP went back on its stand, and other parties, including Congress and PRP, coming together against the announcement in Andhra region, all hell broke loose. It was then that the Centre seems to have understood the complexity of the ground situation. The December 23 statement was self-explanatory on this count:
“However, after the statement, the situation in Andhra Pradesh has altered. A large number of political parties are divided on the issue.”
Since then, the T advocates have been blaming the Centre in general and Chidambaram in particular for the change in stand. They continue to refer to December 9 statement in isolation. However, the Home Minister himself clarified on the apparent contradiction:
“When you refer to my statement on December 9, 2009, you should kindly also refer to the December 23, 2009 statement.”
It might be true that Andhra and Rayalaseema politicians came in the way of division of the state immediately after 2009 statement. But since then, a whole lot of factors played a role in the Centre not going ahead with the formation of separate Telangana.
They include the difficulty in forging a consensus, finding a basis for further division of linguistic states, apprehensions over the political fall-out for the Congress in the state and the fear of opening of a Pandora’s Box with such a decision.
However, the hardcore Telangana activists continue to harp on the ‘betrayal’ of the Centre and the ‘conspiracy’ of Seemandhra capitalists’. Such caricaturing of the situation might help political mobilization for the cause and even help TRS keep the T-pot boiling till next elections, but such a construction of the developments is twice-removed from reality.
As Chidambaram repeatedly said on the issue, the agenda for now could only be to “deliberate on the mechanism and lay down a road map for the consultations.” That can take place only when charged atmosphere cools down and political parties play down emotional content and focus on pragmatic solutions to the issue.
Once bitten hard, the UPA government is twice shy.

Chidambaram role to be probed in 2G

New Delhi: In a major setback for Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, a Delhi court on Thursday pronounced its order on the plea seeking permission to examine the CBI and senior Finance Ministry officials to establish his role in the 2G spectrum scam.
Accepting the petitioner’s plea, the court also allowed more witnesses to be quizzed.
The court also allowed the petitioner to become a witness in his complaint against Chidambaram and asked him to record his statement on December 17 in connection with the case.
Meanwhile, the main opposition BJP today said that it will continue to boycott Chidambaram and pressed for his immediate resignation over his alleged role in the 2G scam.
The petitioner had earlier told Special CBI Judge OP Saini that he wanted to examine CBI and senior Finance Ministry officials and other government servants to prove that Chidambaram had taken a joint decision with former Telecom Minister A Raja regarding fixing the price for the 2G spectrum.
Chidambaram, during his tenure as Finance Minister, had permitted Swan Telecom and Unitech, who had secured the licences, to sell their shares to foreign companies, he alleged.
“I have made out a prima facie case that the fixing of spectrum price was jointly decided by the two ministers (Raja and Chidambaram) and the permission granted to sell shares (to foreign companies Dubai-based Etisalat and Norway-based Telenor) was not in accordance with law,” petitioner said.
He said Chidambaram had written two letters, one to the Prime Minister and other to Raja, on the fixation of spectrum price.
“The then Finance Minister had written a letter to the Prime Minister saying he (Chidambaram) was the one who has to decide the price (of spectrum). The second letter was written to Raja that lets meet and decide (the spectrum price),” he said.
The petitioner said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said that Chidambaram and Raja had decided on the spectrum price.
The petitioner said the documents, which he had received from the CBI after the court’s order, “shows in great detail” as far as spectrum pricing was concerned that it was jointly taken by Raja and Chidambaram.
“Four meetings took place between the two ministers. It is on record that the then Telecom Minister and the then Finance Minister met for deciding the spectrum pricing and it (document) says that Finance Minister said that prices of 2001 shall not be revisited,” he said.
He further said the meetings between both the ministers “shows the meeting of minds” between them.
The petitioner had claimed that national security aspect was “ignored” as Swan Telecom and Unitech were allowed to sell their shares to Etisalat and Telenor, the firms who were under scanner of the Ministry of Home.
He had said the office note of Ministry of Telecom said that the then Finance Minister had clarified the dilution of shares in foreign companies.
“The two companies, Swan Telecom and Unitech sold their shares to Etisalat and Telenor respectively. They were under the scanner of the Home Ministry and the Home Ministry had recommended that these two companies should not be allowed to do business in India,” he had said.
The petitioner had said Chidambaram “failed to protect national security” by not informing the authorities that Etisalat and Telenor were “genuine” companies.