First, a bit of background. Today’s Andhra Pradesh is divided into three regions – Telangana, Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra. The Telangana region comprises of 10 districts in Western and Central Andhra Pradesh  (Adilabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Medak, Warangal, Khammam, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Nalgonda, and Mahaboobnagar). To circle back a little more in history, Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra were part of the Madras Province of the British empire. Telangana, however, was part of the Hyderabad state ruled by the Nizam dynasty. Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra were separated from Madras State in 1953. Later, Telangana merged with these two regions in 1956 based on their linguistic affinity, forming the state of Andhra Pradesh.

The current political situation in Andhra Pradesh is very interesting.

- We have TRS, led by KCR, who lost heavily in both Lok Sabha as well as Assembly elections (to the extent that they didn’t even contest in the recent Municipal elections!). They would be the biggest gainer if Telangana state is formed).

- We have TDP (Telugu Desam Party), led by Chandrababu Naidu who can make a major comeback in limelight on the ‘development’ platform in Telangana state.

- PRP party led by Chiranjeevi would face losses and would fade into irrelevance in Telangana state.

- BJP might make a comeback if they tie-up with TRS in the Telanagana state.

- The other minor players like Devender Goud and A. Narendra who split from their earlier parties might consolidate back into their parent parties.

- The MIM (Muslim League) might not want a Telangana state since it has to tie-up with either the TRS-BJP combine or the TDP to stay relevant. Both options are quite unpalatable.

- And eventually, we have the Congress led by K.Rosiah, whom very few people in the Congress itself have very less respect for. (The argument goes that if YSR was alive, this Telangana furor wouldn’t have come this far!) The deal with Congress is that they have a lot to lose if Telangana is formed as a separate state. They’d lose almost all seats in Telanagana (because of the sympathy vote for TRS or development vote for TDP), win a few in Rayalseema and lose heavily again in Coastal Andhra (caste-politics have a major role in this region). There is a very heavy incentive for Congress to have a united Andhra Pradesh than a split one. YSR, in his day, didn’t push for the split state even though he had the highest number of MPs per state in the Central Govt. precisely for this reason. Therefore, creation of Telangana is almost a death knell for Congress in asserting its majority at the Centre.

The AICC (All India Congress Committee) led by Smt. Sonia Gandhi, first shot itself in the foot declaring that they were actively considering a separate Telangana state. However, the en masse resignation of MLAs and MPs across parties (all MLAs and MPs are from Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra and none from Telangana) has thrown the baby out of the water, resulting in the release of a statement which said ‘The Centre cannot consider it unless the Legislative Assembly passes a bill for a separate state’, clearing washing off its hands from any controversy arising out of this issue. (A theory goes that most of these MLAs and MPs are heavily invested in Hyderabad, and that they would lose a ton of money if a separate state is formed. There is, however, no data point to prove this theory).

Now, on to the argument of a smaller state(s),

Breaking off Telangana from Andhra Pradesh will obviously result in two smaller states. Smaller states make for better delivery of public services, greater accountability and greater opportunities. A separate state of Telangana holds the potential for delivering on all of the above to provide the people of Telangana that much needed boost and confidence to realize their dreams and to eliminate the despair that has been exploited by Naxalism. Why don’t we then divide all states into smaller sub-states for exploiting the above advantages? The answer lies in the fact that any smaller state should justify the logic of economic viability, else it would eventually lead to anarchy. Telangana, with Hyderabad at its base has the power to pull in the money to justify the economics.

Let us take a step back and evaluate splitting of states in recent history. The BJP led NDA govt. had formed three states – Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. Uttarakhand has seen a stable two-party system, focused on governance. Chattisgarh has been a stable polity with tremendous economic improvement but held back by Naxalite menace. Jharkhand however, has seen the exploitation of mineral resources and has had a reckless polity. The argument, hence, over smaller states is mixed, slightly in favor of smaller states.

The argument against smaller states is pretty strong too. Looking at the current inter-state disputes in a 27-state India viz., Andhra Pradesh/Karnataka and Karnataka/TN over water, Maharashtra/Karnataka over disputed land among many others, the number of disputes are bound to go up with 30+ states. And of course, smaller states lead to a lot many ministries, assemblies, governors and the paraphernalia that come with it, in turn meaning increased taxes.

Forming states hence is not only about linguistic affiliations, but also about political and economic realities of the region. The first division of states was not perfect or the coming ones won’t be either. The First State Reorganisation Committee had recommended separate Telangana and Andhra states. The government at that time rejected it for purely political reasons. Forming a Second State Reorganisation Committee would also result in the same conclusion, albeit a zillion years later, for the simple reason that the region except for Hyderabad has had virtually no economic development for the past 40 years. All that Telangana people are asking for themselves is their own state bureaucracy so that they can concentrate on developing their region. I personally feel it is legitimate if a whole region feels neglected after 60 years of Independence. Yes, there would be corruption; yes, the political parties would squabble to assert their dominance over the region but in the end, the people of the region would be solely responsible for their development and therein lies the fundamental right of freedom.