During my corporate career, mergers / acquisitions was an area of focus and interest. Even my first major initiative in the academic world was the IIMA course on Cross-border M&A and Integration. Whether it was in the practical realm or the "theoretical" world, it was clear that the concept of post-merger integration was critical to the success of an acquisition.
One of the best practices in this space is that you plan for integration almost at the same time as you start evaluating the acquisition deal. There are two major reasons: integration is tough and you need all the time you can to plan for it; but more importantly, how you intend to integrate has major implications for the value as well as structuring of the deal. Many deals which may be attractive on a stand-alone basis, fall apart when you consider all the implications of what needs to happen post-deal. Or unattractive deals become viable with the addition of integration benefits or synergies.
Just as the above concept is valid in the case of a merger, so is it if you intend to de-merge a business / entity. Splitting a part from the whole comes with a similar set of issues around people, infrastructure, laws / regulations, etc. You can articulate an intention to de-merge (or merge) but a decision should only be taken after the separation (or integration) issues are considered and resolved.
Imagine if this is the complexity in corporate M&A which might involve thousands of people, what it would take when millions are party to such restructuring actions. This theory (or gyan) is extremely relevant to the way the Andhra Pradesh / Telangana issue has been handled by the Indian government. Like many other decisions, the govt seems to have adopted the principle of Act (announce) Now; Think (analyse) Later.
(Disclaimer: I am not close enough to the situation to comment on the historical and current reasons for the proposed split. Nor do I have any direct stakes in whatever the outcome might be. I was born in Andhra Pradesh and spent a few childhood years there. I have family and friends in multiple cities in AP.)
There are several (recent) instances of new states being created for mostly economic and administrative reasons. I have read some articles on the historical promises made to people of the Telangana region which successive governments have failed to fulfil. So it is safe to say that there are compelling reasons to consider the creation of Telangana state.
But, before announcing the decision as fait accompli, the Government should have identified and listed the major "dis-integration" issues. A process of consultation with key stakeholders (MLAs, MPs, media, opinion influencers, etc.) from all regions would have led to some acceptable alternatives for all key issues. The cost - benefit of these 'solutions' would then have informed us if the original decision was still worth pursuing.
It appears that the Srikrishna Committee did some parts of what has just been suggested. Unfortunately, the govt seems to have either completely ignored the output of that work or failed to publicly share what its resultant dis-integration plan was. The recent setting up of a GoM without any representation from the "affected parties" re-affirms the govt's disdain towards local opinions.
In my view, the people of Seemandhra who are agitating for a united Andhra really don't care about a "united" state. What they care about is the future of their jobs / investments in Hyderabad. What they want to know is that water would be available to the downstream regions. What they want comfort is on the centre's economic support to their state. Similarly, people from Telangana should be concerned about the availability of electricity for their state. They should be eager to know the economic development plan / support for areas beyond Hyderabad. These are issues that a dis-integration plan should have covered. These are issues that can be solved with some give & take, if negotiated in an atmosphere of trust.
It is still not too late. For once, can the central govt give up its unilateral behaviour and embark on a conciliatory process of de-merger? If not the PM, maybe the putative future PM can embrace the statesmanly role that is required at this time. Else, what should have been a clean de-merger will take on the ugly tones of partition.