A seemingly hasty decision by the Indian federal government to carve out a separate state out of one of the country’s biggest states is posing a serious challenge to the government’s ability to create consensus over what has historically been a contentious and politically charged issue.

Last week, the government announced that it would allow the process of the creation of a new state of Telangana out of a part of Andhra Pradesh in India’s south. The announcement has led to turmoil in Andhra Pradesh with politicians from various regions within the state protesting against the decision. The protests have spilled over to the streets and many lawmakers, cutting across party lines, have resigned their seats.

The bone of contention between the pro-changers and those supporting the status quo in Andhra Pradesh is Hyderabad, the state’s capital city and home to global IT and biotechnology firms. Under the current proposal, Hyderabad would be the capital of the new state.

A separate Telangana campaign has been carried on for about half a century now. A popular people’s movement, it has found support from extreme leftist groups who call themselves Maoists. In the run-up to the separate Telangana decision, a fast-unto-death by a political leader from the region forced the government’s hand.

What is causing concern among federal politicians and administrators is the fact that the ramifications of the separate Telangana go beyond Andhra Pradesh. It has resurrected statehood movements across India including those in the insurgency-hit states of Jammu and Kashmir in the north-west and Assam in the north-east, as also in Uttar Pradesh which is the country’s biggest state, and Maharashtra, home to the financial hub of Mumbai. One of India’s most powerful politicians and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Ms Mayawati, has demanded three new states be carved out of her state.

Public demonstrations and shutdowns have marked the latest phase of these movements and raised fears of rampant lawlessness that has characterised similar movements in the past. India’s internal security apparatus is already stretched thin, having to battle domestic insurgencies as well as terrorist groups from outside, and can ill-afford serious internal disorder.

In the first few years after independence from British rule, India divided itself into states on a linguistic basis in 1956 following the recommendations of a states’ reorganisation commission set up three years earlier. The country now has 28 states besides seven centrally-administered territories. But the clamour for new states has continued, mainly over sharing of resources and over complaints of neglect of certain areas. This has at times called into the question the very concept of language as the basis for the division of the country.

On its part, the federal government has tried to be firm in saying that it does not have before it any more proposals for new states. But it will be extremely difficult for the government to hold on to its position if the new statehood movements gain further momentum. In the past, there have been suggestions that another commission for reorganisation of states be constituted to consider all existing demands and territorial disputes.

In the event of the government failing to gain control of the situation, it may go in for such an option. But it would first have to douse the fires raging in Andhra Pradesh which is witnessing a political paralysis of sorts. If it goes back on the proposal, the government’s credibility would be at stake.  The government is now playing a careful balancing game, stating that there can be no discussion on the issue of a new state in the Lok Sabha (Parliament) until the Andhra Pradesh assembly passes a resolution to that effect. As such a resolution will be difficult to obtain, the manoeuvre is aimed at calming nerves in Andhra Pradesh while at the same time signaling no change in the position on Telangana.

Article by Nagaraj Bedathur

Nagaraj Bedathur is Director, India and Sub-Continent, Pasco Risk Management.