Chidambaram apologises for loss of lives during Telangana statehood stir, BRS says too late
Hyderabad (PTI): Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram has apologised for the loss of lives during the Telangana statehood agitation, drawing sharp reactions from the ruling BRS.
Speaking to mediapersons here on Thursday, the former Union Minister also said creating a state or dividing a state was not child's play and it was done in response to people's movement.
Reacting to Chidambaram's remarks, BRS leader and Minister K T Rama Rao said it was already too late.
Describing suicide as an 'unfortunate incident', Chidambaram said, "If in the people's movement some persons lost their lives in the agitation... we are sorry for that. But you can't hold the (then) Central government responsible for that."
He was responding to the accusation of Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao that previous UPA government had delayed the formation of Telangana resulting in loss of lives.
The Congress veteran further said Telangana was formed in response to the people's movement.
In a post on "X", BRS working president Rama Rao said, "Too late and Too little Chidambaram Ji.. Your party is solely responsible for taking the lives of hundreds of Telangana youngsters from 1952-2014. No matter how hard you try now, people of Telangana will always remember the brutalities Congress perpetrated on us."
Chidambaram, however, alleged that over 4,000 suicides were reported in Telangana under K Chandrasekhar Rao-led BRS government and sought to know who was responsible for it.
"A state is created after a movement like original Andhra Pradesh was created. A state is divided in response to people's movement. If some lives have been lost we are sorry for that. But what about the 4,000 odd suicides in Telangana under KCR's government. Who is responsible for those suicides?" he asked.
During his poll rallies, Rao had charged Congress with delaying the formation of Telangana.
Though the previous UPA government agreed to the formation of Telangana after he began an indefinite fast, it went back on its word.
Later, the UPA government fulfilled its promise only after massive protests, he had claimed.
Rao also blamed the Congress for the deaths during the statehood agitation and said the grand old party delayed its approval for a new state.
Chidambaram further said Rao emerged as a prominent leader of that movement and that is why he is the Chief Minister today.
"I hope KCR is not saying that the people have nothing to do with that and I got Telangana... I hope he is not saying that and if he is saying that then people will answer him in the elections," he said.
The former Union Minister recalled that it was after great amount of work and persuasion that the Congress agreed to carve out Telangana and an announcement to this effect was made on December 9, 2009 following which Chandrasekhar Rao called off his fast.
"He (KCR) profusely thanked us. But, another agitation broke out. And Justice Srikrishna Commission was appointed, which gave six recommendations. Ultimately, the Congress party and the government in the Centre agreed to divide united Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and AP," he added.
To a query on KCR's statement that the Congress merged Telangana with Andhra Pradesh earlier (in 1956), against the will of the people here, Chidambaram said, "I think Chandrasekhar Rao is not a particularly good student of history."
"How was Andhra Pradesh formed? A large part of Andhra Pradesh was part of Madras presidency. And there was Hyderabad state. There was a massive movement for creating a Telugu speaking state and that is how a single Andhra Pradesh was formed bringing together all Telugu speaking people and all Telugu speaking regions of this part of India," he said.
In his response, Telangana Finance Minister T Harish Rao in a post on "X", said, "Congress leader Chidambaram's comment is like a murderer expressing condolences. Youth sacrificed their lives during the agitation because of Chidambaram going back on his statement about formation of Telangana."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
