After L.K.Advani started talking about Telangana in his Jana Chetana Yatra, people started criticizing him by pointing out BJP resolution in Kakinada. I don't accept their criticism.
In 1998, in Kakinada, BJP passed a resolution of 1 vote, 2 states. They promised that, they would give separate Telangana, if it comes to power. But, when it came to power in 1998 and in 1999, it did not give Telangana. Because, Chandrababu Naidu was giving support and he did not want to separate the state.
For any person, their first priority is always sustainment and their promises comes only after that. If they cannot even sustain, there is no question of fulfilling the promises. Without Chandrababu, they could not form the government. If they don't take the support of Chandrababu, they cannot fulfill any promise, leave alone Telangana. By taking the support of Chandrababu, they could fulfill many promises except Telangana.
I would not criticize L.K.Advani for the above reason. But, I criticize him for the below reasons.
During 1999 elections, L.K.Advani said, there was no plan to give the separate Telangana state. The reason he gave was, for all other new states, the capital was far away from their places. Whereas, for Andhra Pradesh, Capital is in the middle of Telangana. So, there is no need of giving separate state.
He understands the importance of the Capital. Now, why is he taking the capital away from Seemandhra? Why is his point no longer valid now?
The following is the excerpts from his auto-biography, My Country My Life:
Aware of the division passions that this issue (formation of new states) had evoked in the past, and aware also of the strong possibility of similar demands arising in the future, I enunciated a sound guiding principle to go ahead in this matter: for Parliament to consider any specific proposal for the formation of a new state, the legislative assembly of the parent state should adopt an enabling resolution to give its consent.
Now, L.K.Advani is demanding to pass the bill in the Parliament without passing in the assembly. Is it not directly contradicting to what he wrote in his book?
While replying to the debate in Parliament after the enactment of the legislations for the reorganization of the three states, I said, 'No one party should claim credit for the creation of the states and I would commend both Houses of Parliament and all political parties, particularly the main opposition party (Congress), and constituents of the ruling alliance (NDA), for the smooth passage of the Bills'.
This was a good example of how consensus-building, rather than confrontation, can yield the desired results.
Now, what is he doing? Is he building consensus or confrontation?
Eventhough, I have lot of respect for L.K.Advani, I could not support him on this issue.