Thanks to the announcement of union Home minister P.Chidambaram  that the centre shall begin the process of forming Telangana state, political flames have engulfed the state. The political system is vertically divided. All the political parties are divided on regional lines. The division has crept into the society.  The state and central governments are groping in the darkness unable to find a way out. Politicians are busy fishing in troubled waters  even when their parties  are facing a worst  ever  crisis. Let  us look  at the  various options available before the government .

If  the central government is still committed to stand firm on its announcement, constitutionally it can do so. The constitution is clear  here . The parliament is supreme as far as altering the boundaries of any state or reorganization of any state or to create any state. The centre is obliged to take the opinion of the concerned state Assembly . Seeking the opinion of the concerned state Assembly is mandatory . But, the opinion is only advisory. Even if the concerned state Assembly opposes the proposal to carve out a new state or even if the concerned state Assembly fail to give its opinion in the stipulated period , still the centre can go ahead with the process of forming the state of Telangana as it has already announced.

This is only a constitutional way out. But, the governments do not function only on constitutionalities and technicalities.  The governments function politically . The problem lies here. All the political parties are united in the struggle for integrated state in the Coastal and Rayalaseema regions. Political parties are facing the revolt. Public representatives  are threatening to press for acceptance of  their resignations. As  on today, there is only a political crisis. But, it can soon take the form of a constitutional crisis if the things are allowed to continue unabated. Meanwhile, the agitation in the coastal and Rayalaseema regions are intensifying. The demands for smaller states have cropped  up in many parts of the country. The allies of Congress in the UPA government have already expressed their opposition to these demands. Given this situation setting up of Second States Reorganisation Commission as a compromise formula does not work. In case centre decides to set up such a second SRC , the   cure will be worse than the problem. If the Centre completely retreats from its announced stand or if it choses to inordinately delay  formation of Telangana state, the political flames will rise high in Telangana region now. All the political parties in this region will be in trouble. Sensing this leaders are already making their moves. In fact after the centre’s announcement and Andhra backlash, even those who were neutral till today are shifting towards the demand for separate state. Even those who were earlier  saw wisdom in the united state are gravitating towards  Telangana state, thus further strengthening the sentiment in the people. Thus the Centre and the major political parties are caught in a catch 22 situation .

Meanwhile What happens to the resignation episode. Firstly if the Centre retreats non Telangana legislators may withdraw their resignations but, Telangana legislators will resign and pressure  shall mount on them from the people.

If the situation remains like this, the resigned legislators will continue  to insist the Speaker to accept their resignations. What is the way out for the Speaker in constitutional terms? Should speaker accept the resignation of a member? According to the constitution, every member of the legislature has a right to resign if he or she wants to do so. But, the Speaker has to accept the resignation after finding out whether such a resignation is voluntary  and real or whether resignation is given by the member under any pressure. Therefore, Speaker has to personally speak to every member before  taking a decision on  the resignations of the members. Just because a member stages a dharna demanding acceptance of his or her resignation, Speaker  can not do so. However constitution does not stipulate any time frame for taking a decision on the resignation of the members. No Court can intervene in the discretion of Speaker, the power which the Speaker enjoys through the constitution.

Is President’s rule inevitable if members of Assembly resign enmasse and those resignations are accepted by speaker? Even if the members resign enmasse, technically the house can continue and the government can continue as long as there is a chorum which is only 10 percent of the strength of the house. However it is politically difficult to run the house in the absence of majority members even though there is chorum technically.

Still there is no need to dissolve the legislature immediately. The speaker can postpone his decision on the resignation of the members. The Assembly can be kept under suspended animation by imposing president’s rule for some period. The house can be revived after the conditions are restored. The dissolution of the legislature should be the last option only after all the constitutional options are exhausted. As the peoples mandate   can not be nullified and the burden of elections can not be imposed on the people again and again.

President’s rule either by dissolving the house or keeping it under suspended animation is not advisable. Then what is the way-out? Infact, it is difficult to suggest impartially. Solutions are easy only if someone takes a stand for or against  division of the state. Thus the option before the Central government is to convene the meeting of all the political parties  and elicit their  present stand. This would expose the real character of every party before people. But, in such a scenario, opposition will escape by asking for the opinion of the government first to enable them to react. Thus the onus now is on the ruling party at the centre to clearly spell  its stand. The ruling party can not enjoy the luxury of indecision.