Telengana: Opening Pandora’s box
“In
ages long past a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real
victory was one in which all were equally victorious and there was defeat for
no one. In the world today that is the only practical victory; any other way
will lead to disaster”
Nehru’s
speech in the UN general assembly
We should consider feelings of the
people but it would be very wrong to be swept away by feelings. We must see
what is in the larger interest of the people themselves.
There is a rationality in the formation
of our various states and we should be careful not to break this foundation of
rationality in momentary passions
Indira Gandhi on States Reorganization
Now that the political excreta of the frantic UPA
& the congress party struck the oscillator, all the hell is going to break
loose in Seemandhra and other parts of the country where secessionist movements
were in a low strung or died off due to perceived impossibility of realizing
the demands.
The immediate reasons for the decision is the
political reality that the congress is steadily losing ground all over the
country and the perceived reality that in Andhra Pradesh they could gain only 5
or 6 seats in the coming elections. Andhra Pradesh made a crucial contribution
to the national tally of the Congress and the UPA in the 2004 and 2009 general
elections. Of the 42 seats in the State, the Congress on its own won 29 and 33
seats respectively in 2004 and 2009.
The coming elections is the most crucial for
congress and the Nehru dynasty in that the Prime ministerial candidate of NDA
is none other than Modi , a man whom they fear the most. If he happens to become
the next PM , then chances that many of the UPA leaders including Man Mohan
Singh will be behind the bars and the future prospect of the dynasty will be in
perpetual doom.
The politically myopic decision of the Congress will
have a cascading effect on fervor of other secessionist movements in other
parts of the country and the effect will be particularly disastrous in the
North-East.
There are a number of sub regional demand for
separate statehoods like Karbi Anglong in Assam, Vidarbha state by joining
Amaravati and Nagpur in Maharashtra, Harit pradesh by combining 22 districts of
UP, Awadh from central UP, Purvanchal from UP, Bundelkhand combining districts
from UP and MP, separation of J&K to Dogradesh and Kashmir, Separate Ladakh
state, Gorkhaland combining Darjeeling and Dooars in WBengal, Kamtapur frm WB,
Bodoland from Assam, Dimaraji combining areas from Assam and Nagaland, Kongu nadu
to be carved out from TN, Kosal from Odisha, Mithila from Bihar and Jharkhand,
Tulunadu from Karnataka, Vindhya pradesh from MP, Kukiland from Manipur, Kuch
and Saurashtra from Maharashtra.
The main threat to the security of the country is to
come from the separatist demand from North-East states ,which already is a
heavily militarized zone. The Indian government already have minimum control in
these areas. The real threat posed is from a strategic involvement of China in
the near future in the separatist movements in these areas.
A SHORT HISTORY OF TELANGANA MOVEMENT
India is unique among world nations in that it is a
pluralist state, consisting of multi lingual, multi ethnic, multi religious
,multi caste people .During India’s anti-colonial resistance, the Congress
party had committed itself to a post-colonial political order of linguistically
defined states. In 1920, when
Gandhi assumed leader-ship of the Congress soon after his return from South
Africa, he laid the foundations for a post-independence federal
state by replacing
Provincial Congress Committees,
based on British provinces, with 20 language-based
PCCs. By
using a federal structure to democratize communication within the Congress,
Gandhi not only arranged for shared sovereignty among India’s linguistic
regions but also was able to create a truly national organization that could
speak to and mobilize village India.
As far back as 1922 congress began organizing the
branches not along the colonial structure of presidencies and provinces, but
along language lines. In 1928 a committee headed by Motilal Nehru outlined a
vision of a future polity organized into linguistic states. The report (August
1928) argued: ‘If a province has to educate itself and do its daily work
through the medium of its own language, it must necessarily be a linguistic
area. If it happens to be a polyglot area difficulties will continually arise
and the media of instructions and work will be two or even more languages.
Hence it becomes most desirable for provinces to be regrouped on a linguistic
basis.
However, when
it came to power after the independence, the Congress leadership became more
ambivalent. The Constituent Assembly that the Congress party dominated
abandoned the idea of linguistic reorganization. The Linguistic Provinces
Commission constituted in 1948 recommended against the reorganization of
provinces since most reorganized states would still have large populations
speaking languages other than the language of the majority. It also feared that
such reorganization would negatively affect the development of a sense of
Indian nationhood.
A clamour for linguistic States nonetheless began shortly
and Telugu speakers were first to engage in violence in the Madras state and a
Telugu State was promised by the government. Telugu-Andhra tussle dates back to
the 1950s. A leader of the Communist Party of India pressed a motion for a
Telugu-speaking State supported by several Congress members in July 1952 that
went against Nehru’s wishes and was finally rejected because of party
solidarities. Potti Sriramulu, the leader of the Vishal Andhra Movement,
undertook a fast into death for a united Telangana State. He died on the
fifty-sixth day, and that was the ultimate point which eventually led to
violent riots, several deaths and the creation of Andhra Pradesh. The
government decided in December 1952 to create the new State which came into
existence in October 1953. It was the first state constituted on linguistic basis after India’s independence.
After the
formation of Andhra state in October, 1953, the demand for creation of other
linguistic states gained momentum. On December 22, 1953, the then Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru,
announced in the Lok Sabha the decision to set up a States Reorganization
Commission to examine “objectively and dispassionately” the whole question
of the reorganization of the states of the Indian Union. Accordingly States Reorganization Commission” was appointed on December 29,
1953 headed by Justice
S. Fazal Ali
with H.N. Kunzru and K.M. Panikkar as members. The
Commission submitted its report to the Government of India in 1955. The
Commission, after consultations and
interactions with various
groups of people,
is reported to
have found the public will in favor of linguistic
reorganization.
From the time of formation of Andhra state, in the
parliamentary debates during 1953-1955, sentiments were expressed
by members of parliament representing the erstwhile state of Hyderabad,
in favour of unification of all the Telugu-speaking areas of both Andhra state
and erstwhile Hyderabad state into visalandhra.
At the Chief Ministers‟ conference
on October 22,
1955, Andhra and
Hyderabad Chief Ministers suggested
immediate merger of
Telangana and Andhra
instead of waiting for five years
as proposed by the SRC. Hyderabad
Assembly
discussed an official
resolution on SRC
Report from November
25 to December 3, 1955. The trend of the debate was that, out of the
174 members of the House
barring the Speaker,
who participated in
the discussion, 147 members
expressed their views.
Of these, 103
favored Vishalandhra, 29 favored
independent Hyderabad state
and 15 remained
neutral. From the residuary
states, 59 wanted
Vishalandhra, 25 separate
Hyderabad state and 1
was neutral.
Strong opposition to unified Andhra Pradesh was
overcome with the formulation of a Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956. The agreement
include safeguards to protect the interests of Telangana region in the unified
state.
Thus came into
being the state
of Andhra Pradesh.
The Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, inaugurated the new state on
November 1, 1956.
Although Andhra Pradesh constitutionally became a
geographically unified state, in many respects it continued to function as a
political mix of two entities, namely, the
Andhra and the
Telangana regions. However,
in socio-economic comparisons,
given the historical
background, it was
considered as a mix of three distinct regions i.e. coastal
Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana.
During
the first two
decades itself, the
state was rocked
by two major movements; one in 1969, popularly known
as “Jai Telangana” and the other in
1972, popularly known as “Jai Andhra”.
From 1956 itself Congress began undermining
Gentlemen’s Agreement. The political space in the institution of Deputy
Chief Minister (or Chief Minister
for the
Telangana region) was
denied by the
signatory to the
Gentlemen’s Agreement and the
Chief Minister from
Andhra area, Neelam
Sanjeeva Reddy (who became the
first Chief Minister of the united Andhra Pradesh) in the very first Ministry
in 1956 by
reportedly calling it
an ”unwanted sixth
finger of the hand”
This attitude becomes a sore point for telanganites
for all times to come and in later years, other issues such as the sharing of
waters and irrigation resources, land management etc., also became quite
contentious. Nehru also added fuel to the discontent by not forming the
Statutory ‘Regional Council” as envisaged in the Gentlemen’s Agreement and also
in Article 371.
These discontents gave rise to the “Jai Telengana
Agitation” in 1969. The agitation drew strength from the fact that the
“Telengana Regional Committee” which was formed instead of the statutory
“regional council” did nothing to safeguard the interest of the Telangana
region because of the orchestration by Congress leaders like Sanjeeva Reddy.
To quell agitation on April 22, 1969 Indira Gandhi
appointed a commission with vasisht Bhargava supreme court judge as chairman.
In 1970 presidential order came amending 1958 article 371 adding more powers to
TRC. Thus Indira successfully handled the “Jai Telangana Agitation” and it died
off.
In 1971 Indira appointed Narasimha Rao, a shrewd
congress politician and staunch Indira loyalist, the first Telanganite CM of
Andhra Pradesh. The AP Government announced its decision to implement the Mulki
Rules. The Government
of India, realizing
the intensity of the feelings
of the people in
both the regions
on the issue
of Mulki Rules,
tried to arrive
at a balance, and
in the process,
agreed to allow
the Mulki Rules
in the twin
cities up to 1977 and
in the rest
of the Telangana
until the end
of 1980. A
Bill was introduced in the
Parliament to that effect which was passed on December 31, 1972.
In 1919 the Nizam of Hyderabad had issued a “Firman” laying down that only
“Mulkis” are eligible for public appointment in the state. This rule known as
“mulki Rule” was another point of contention for the people from Coastal Andhra
,who felt that they are discriminated against in their own state. As a consequence,
some of the
coastal Andhra employees
challenged the validity of the Mulki Rules in the Andhra Pradesh High
Court. On February 14, 1972, a full
bench of the five judges, with a 4-1 majority, held that
the Mulki Rules
were not valid
and operative after
the formation of Andhra Pradesh state.
The High Court
Judgment stirred the
Andhra Pradesh Government
and was a rude shock to the Telanganites as they were
always insisting on enforcement of
the Mulki Rules. Government opted for approaching SC
and On October 3, 1972, the Supreme Court gave its verdict reversing the A.P
High Court decision and holding that Mulki Rules were valid and were in force.
This judgment stirred the people in coastal Andhra region who felt that they
were reduced to the status of second class citizens in their own state
capital. Ostensibly, to
safeguard their dignity,
they preferred to
sever their connection with
Telanganites.
The people of
coastal Andhra region
were taken aback
by the
passage of the Bill as they wanted nothing short of
immediate abolition of the
Mulki Rules. A meeting of Coastal Andhra leaders on
behest of Depty CM B.V.Subba Reddy (Dec 31 1972) issued a call to “paralyze”
state administration and thus started a violent agitation called “Jai Andhra
Agitation”. The agitation resulted in losses to public property as well as
human life. Taking all these aspects into consideration, including the intensity
of the agitation,
President‟s Rule was
imposed in the
state in January, 1973.
Prime Minister Smt.
Indira Gandhi(the only “man” who adorned the chair of PM of independent
India) again intervened, and after
a series of discussion
with leaders of both the
regions, evolved a
consensus through the “Six
Point Formula”.
Implementation
of the Six
Point Formula was
required to be
backed by the
Constitutional Amendment which was enabled by the
Thirty-Second Amendment
in 1973. The Mulki Rules
were repealed in 1973 by the Mulki Rules Repeal Act and the Six Point
Formula (SPF) was announced on 21 st
September, 1973.
The Six point
Formula (SPF) was
incorporated in the
form of special provisions with
respect to the state of Andhra Pradesh in the Constitution (Article 371-D) and
a Presidential Order was issued through
G.O. Ms. No 674 on February 20, 1975, to mark the beginning of the
implementation of the Formula.
SPF was more state-centric
as compared to the Gentlemen‟s Agreement,
which was primarily
Telangana-centric.
Ironically SPF lead to emergence of
Telugu nationalism weakening of congress and strengthening of TDP.
The gradual weakening of the leadership of the
Congress Party in Andhra Pradesh, like in some other states, and the
championing of Telugu sub-nationalist pride became the basis for the emergence
of the Telugu Desam Party. The impact of the birth of Telugu Desam was that it
greatly overshadowed the regional political divisions
that had existed
in the form
of Telangana, coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
This is precisely the where the ruling UPA
government led by Congress trying to push forth states reorganization aiming
for the disintegration of linguistic states thus hoping to weaken linguistic sub nationalism . Another
aim of Congress shared by BJP as well is “Weakening the Federal Structure” of
Indian states , thus strengthening the Unitary structure of the country.
An order subsequently known as GO 610
to correct abnormities in presidential order 1975 relating to Telangana
employees concerns issued in 1985.
In 2001 a one man committee, “Girglani committee”
was set up to enquire complaints about lapses in implementing GO 610 submitted
report in 2004 with126 findings and 35 remedial measures. Govt approved report
in 2006.
Demand for separate Telangana
resurfacing
BJP, in its national executive meeting at
Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh)
in 1997, had
passed a resolution
supporting a separate state for
Telangana. Accordingly, in the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, BJP gave the slogan
“One Vote, Two States”. MLAs of the Congress from Telangana region had also
started a regional forum called
Telangana Congress Legislators
Forum (TCLF) with
the consent of the
state leadership. In the panchayat election in Telangana region, the slogan of
TCLF was “Jai Congress, Jai Telangana”.
The
resurfacing of the
Telangana issue in
panchayat elections provided the
ground for the projection of the popularity of the TRS, which was created only
a year earlier with the goal of achieving a separate Telangana. TRS
provided the Telangana
cause with all
the needed ideological
and logistical support to
keep the momentum
going. In the
process, the party
tried to maintain electoral
prominence both at the state and at the Centre. In the run-up to the 2004 Lok
Sabha and Assembly elections, the Congress
and the TRS
formed an electoral
alliance. In the Congress
election manifesto for 2004 elections, it was stated that “the Congress
Party recognizes the growing emotions and aspirations of the people in the
Telangana region”.
The UPA in their National Common Minimum Programme
(NCMP), 2004, of the Government included the Telangana issue also stating that
“The UPA Government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana
state at an appropriate time after due consideration and consensus”.
The UPA Government
accordingly constituted a
three-Member Committee of the
Cabinet Ministers under
the Chairmanship of
Shri Pranab Mukherjee in
November, 2004 with
Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad
Singh and Shri Dayanidhi Maran
as Members. The
Committee did take
up this matter
further, but no conclusion seems to have been arrived at.
On the reported
grounds that the
Central Government had
been indecisive over the
delivery of its
electoral promise to
the TRS for
creating a separate Telangana, TRS
in September, 2006 withdrew support to the Congress-led UPA Government at the
Centre.
TRS withdrew MLA-s and MP-s in 2008 forcing
bye-elections in which TRS lost prominence.
In Nov 29, 2009 TRS chairman K.Chandrasekhara Rao
started fast unto death.
On the day of his fast, i.e. November 29, 2009, K. Chandrasekhara Rao was
arrested and taken to Khammam. On November 30, 2009 he reportedly broke his
fast but resumed it soon thereafter under pressure from vociferous and
agitating pro-Telangana elements. Following these
developments, there was simultaneous and wide-spread agitation
and violence in Telangana region for a
few
days, particularly on
December 6-7, 2009,
resulting in major
damage to
public
and private property
and loss of
life including a
number of suicides.
Taking into account the situation in the state and
the deliberations in this all party meeting, the Union Home Minister,
P.Chidambaram in the late evening of December 9, 2009 at New Delhi announced
the decision of the Central Government to initiate the process of forming the state
of Telangana, adding that an
appropriate resolution would
be moved in
the State Assembly. Based on this development TRS
President, Chandrasekhara Rao gave up his fast and the agitation was called off.
The above announcement, however, created a backlash
in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, resulting in agitations and eruption
of violence in many districts.
The agitations included bandh calls by
political parties, road blockages, fast-unto-death programmes,
relay hunger strikes
etc. A near
total bandh was organized in all the districts of coastal Andhra and
Rayalaseema on
December 11, 2009 at the call of political parties.
Looking at the totality of the situation, including
the intensity of the backlash, the
Union Home Minister
made another statement on
December 23, 2009 that the situation in the state had altered since December 9,
2009 and emphasized the need
for wide ranging
consultations with all political parties and groups and
promised to take steps to involve all
concerned in the process.
Although,
this statement led
to ending of
agitations in coastal
Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, agitations restarted
in Telangana region due
to the perceived change in the stand of the
Government of India. At this point,
reportedly sixty three MLAs belonging to Telangana
region (Congress – thirteen;
TDP – thirty seven; TRS – ten; BJP –one; PRP –two)
submitted their resignation.
On
December 30, 2009,
a bandh was called by
the Telangana Joint Action
Committee (TJAC) paralyzing the entire region.
It is beyond doubt that NDA‟s tenure at the centre,
leading to the
creation of the
separate states of
Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand),
Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand in 2000 , give tremendous fillip to secessionist
movements across India and contributed to the morale of Telangana supporters in
AP.
SETTING UP THE SRI KRISHNA COMMITTEE
The
Government of India
vide its decision
dated February 3,
2010, constituted the “Committee for consultations on the situation in
Andhra Pradesh” headed by former
Chief Justice B.N. Srikrishna to look
into the demand for separate statehood for Telangana or keep the State united
in the present form, Andhra Pradesh , in 3 February 2010 and
submitted its report on 30 December 2010 to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Srikrishna Committee solicited suggestions and
views from political parties, social organisations, and otherstakeholders. The
committee received over 60,000 petitions by the deadline of 10 April. It toured
all the regions of state extensively and invited people from all sections of
the society to give their opinion on the statehood. It received over one lakh
petitions and representations from political parties, organisations, NGOs and
individuals. It also held consultations with political parties and general
public while also factoring in the impact of recent developments on different
sections of people such as women, children, students, minorities, Other
Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
There are seven Terms of Reference for
the committee.
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 suchas 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.
The Sri Krishna Committee submitted a
comprehensive 461-page report after their detailed across the state which
included consultations with various political as well as social groups
OBSERVATIONS &CONCLUSIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE
One surprising observation pointed out by the
committee is that the regional disparities in the state were exacerbated by the
unfurling of the Neo-Liberal policies by the state.
Overall, the state of AP, so far, has attracted only
12,421 crores in FDI. Of which, `6490
crores of investment has taken place in Telangana (including Hyderabad), but
with very high concentration in Hyderabad city/district Telangana region
excluding Hyderabad has received only `1658 crores compared with `5499 crores investments in coastal Andhra. Rayalaseema has received just `732 cores
of FDI investments.
The relatively deprived region of AP is
Rayalaseema
Coastal Andhra stands out as a superior economic
entity within AP; and its GDP will be
13th largest compared
with the states
of India
Fears are very strong in Rayalaseema and they are
apprehensive that Hyderabad city, as a market destination and also a source
of supply, will
be out of
bonds after the
creation of Telangana
as a separate state. Coastal Andhra will also lose a major market
inherent in huge population, business and market concentration of the city of
Hyderabad. On this
count, separation of AP
can be a
negative factor which
inhibits economic growth
of newly formed states.
The SKC remarked that "It is a fact that most
of the economic and developmental parameters show that Telangana (excluding
Hyderabad city but including Hyderabad suburbs) is either on par with or a
shade lower than Coastal Andhra.
The SKC noted that the Planning Commission had
notified as backward nine of the ten Telangana districts, with the exception of
Hyderabad, and resources have been allocated under its Backward Region Grant
Fund (BRGF). These districts contain, as the SKC says, 87% of the population of
Telangana.
“The implementation of G.O. 610 during 1985 to 2005
was, at best, tardy, which remains a grievance of Telangana employees. This
issue continues to be highly contentious even today (p.48).” Girgliani Report on
GO. 610 estimated 140,000 Telangana jobs diverted to Seemandhra persons.
Although as a sub-regional movement, the
Telangana movement does not pose a threat to national unity
Thus, from the point of view of sheer size of
economy, Telangana as a new State can sustain itself both with and without
Hyderabad. The other combination of regions – coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema together
can also sustain themselves as a State; in fact, they can also sustain
themselves separately.
“Given the above first hand observations of the Committee
during its tours of the regions, the Committee feels that the issue of
sentiment has to be considered only as one among several factors to be
evaluated. While not discounting people’s wishes or sentiments, the overall
implications of bifurcation (or trifurcation as the case may be) have to be
carefully delineated to arrive at a responsible recommendation.
The
coordinated and balanced
development of power sector in the three regions of Andhra Pradesh is possible
only because of transfer of natural gas and oil from KG basin, coal from
Singareni and Talchar
mines and hydro
power from Sreesailam
and Nagarjuna projects.
The
hydel generation capacity
is the highest
(68%) in Telangana,
among the three regions.
This is because
of the fact
that the two
major rivers of
Andhra Pradesh are entering
the Telangana region
and are at
a higher elevation
than those of Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra. This gives a sufficient
head of water to construct hydro stations in Telangana region.
The
division of the
state will also
have serious implications
outside Andhra Pradesh. It would
not only give fillip to other similar demands but it will be
for the first
time, after the
re-organization of states,
that a political demand for
dividing a linguistically constituted
state would have
been conceded by the Union Government with the creation of two Telugu
speaking states. The issue requires a
most calm and dispassionate consideration of the consequences. The
matter should also
be seen in
the larger context
of whether a region can be allowed to decide for itself what its
political status should be, as that would only create a demand for a great
number of small states resulting in problems of coordination and management. It
is normally believed that formation of smaller states contributes to
pre-existing barriers to inter-state and
intra-state trade and movement of goods and services. For example, a variety of local entry
taxes and cess
may impede free
trade and enhance
cost of business and increase
prices of goods and services. There can
also be local laws restraining physical
movement of goods
and services between neighbouring regions
and between states.
The six options presented in the report
were as follows:
1. Maintaining
Status Quo - Keeping the Andhra Pradesh State as it is with no change in the Telangana,Seemandhra and
coastal regions.
2 Bifurcating
the state of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telengana regions with both of
them developing their own capitals in due course of time. Hyderabad to be
converted to a Union Territory -
This proposal was similar to the Punjab-Haryana-Chandigarh model.
3. Dividing
Andhra Pradesh into two states - One of Rayala-Telangana with Hyderabad as its
capital and second one of the Coastal Andhra Pradesh
4. Dividing
Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with enlarged Hyderabad Metropolis
as a separate Union Territory that will be linked geographically to district
Guntur in coastal Andhra via Nalgonda district in the southeast and via
Mahboobnagar district in the south to Kurnool district in Rayalaseema
5. Bifurcation
of the State into Telangana and Seemandhrâ as per existing boundaries with
Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra to have a new capital.
This was the second most preferred option according to the report.
6. Keeping
the State united and providing for creation of a statutorily empowered
Telangana Regional Council for socio-economic development and political
development of Telangana region. This was the
most preferred option.
Even
though the committee recommended strongly the case for keeping AP united and meeting
the aspirations of the Telangana people
by setting up a statutory Regional Council (which was scuttled by the
same Congress party in the past) , what we observe in the UPA decision of July
30 to approve bifurcation of AP, is that the political expediency and vote bank
politics of UPA and especially the Congress party taking precedence over the
legitimate historical, social-cultural and political objective reality facing
the country.
In
the past the same party lost two prime ministers of their’s solely because of
the myopic political stands they adopted. Indira Gandhi paid with her life for
the frankensteinian monster she created to counter the popularity of Akali
politics in Punjab. Rajiv Gandhi lost his life because of his ill-advised
political move first to train Tamil tigers in Indian soil against another
sovereign country to appease Tamil chauvinists in TN and later on sending Indian Army to fight the
same LTTE whom they had trained, this time to help Srilankan Government.
History
once again proved that Congress party learns nothing from history.
