The committees exact words were: Separation is recommended only in case it is unavoidable and if this decision can be reached amicably among all the three regions. Though its most preferred option was to keep Andhra Pradesh intact,the committee could not help proposing the split as the second best option because the creation of a separate Telangana,it conceded,would satisfy a large majority of people from the region.
The committee admitted the depth of sentiment favouring separation among the people of Telangana and acknowledged the validity of their grievance or the felt psyche of discrimination and domination.Despite its assertion that the region was not as backward as it was made out to be,the committee accepted that the continuing demand for a separate Telangana has some merit and is not entirely unjustified.
But it ignored willfully or otherwise where exactly this continuing demand came from.It failed to recognize it as a consequence of the forced merger that Telangana has been trapped in since 1956 and the widely perceived betrayal,in letter and spirit,of the promises made in the form of a Gentlemans Agreement.Had the committee diagnosed it essentially as a demand for demerger on account of reneged promises,it would not have committed the folly of proposing the Telangana Regional Council as the keystone of its best option.For,the same council,with more or less the same nomenclature and powers,had been promised in the 1956 Gentlemans Agreement.There was little followup action.
Given the multi-disciplinary expertise at its disposal,the committee should have known better than to presume,that despite the trust deficit,there was a realistic chance of the people of Telangana agreeing to remain within the unified state on the basis of empowerment measures apparently designed to reduce the sense of discrimination.If the committees report has evoked widespread condemnation from the people of Telangana,it has a lot to do with the reluctance it betrayed in examining the implications of their elaborately documented position that Andhra Pradesh from its very inception was a forced union.
Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956 even after the States Reorganization Commission,while redrawing the political map of India,had rejected the proposal of immediately merging the Telugu-speaking parts of the then Hyderabad state with the then Andhra state.Bowing to pressure from Andhra leaders,the Nehru government disregarded the commissions recommendation that the residuary state of Hyderabad might unite with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in about 1961,if by a two-thirds majority the legislature of Hyderabad state expresses itself in favour of such a unification.
The commission,headed by Justice S Fazal Ali,had arrived at such a conclusion because of its finding that there were misgivings about the unification proposal in Telangana.It said: The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately while Telangana itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra.
The Fazal Ali panels words have proved prescient because,for all the development work in Andhra Pradesh in the 55 years that have elapsed,the people of Telangana still nurse the feeling that they have been colonized.Hence,they are not impressed with the Sri Krishna Committees argument that,notwithstanding their feelings of exclusion,they should try out the new governance model in which they would be provided special safeguards.They are unwilling to settle for such affirmative action.Nothing but the autonomy of statehood would satisfy them.
The agitation is all about regaining control over their resources as they see that as the only way out of the unequal relationship between Telangana and Andhra.They want statehood even if it is not necessarily in the national interest,as pointed out by the committee,True,the split is very likely to cause a setback to the growth story of Andhra Pradesh in general and Hyderabad in particular.Worse,it might give a boost to the Maoist movement.The tough choice that the Centre is being asked to make is between the reality of growth in the unified state and the hope for greater equity in the Telangana state.But then,democracy is ultimately about people,not economics.
======================================
The ABC of carving out a new state in India
What is the process for formation of a new state ?
According to article 3 of the Indian constitution, Parliament can form a new state by separating a territory from any state,by merging two or more states or parts of states. Parliament can also diminish or increase the area or alter the boundary of any state or even change the name of any state. But first, a Bill on the matter has to be referred by the President to the legislature of whichever state (or states) is affected by the proposed change in area,boundary or name,so that the legislature can express its views within a certain period.Once the president has ascertained the views of the state government, a resolution is tabled before the assembly.Once the resolution is passed by the assembly,it has to pass a Bill creating the new state. Finally, a separate Bill on the matter is introduced and passed in Parliament on the recommendation of the President.Once the Bill is ratified by the president, new state is formed.
How were states organised after Independence in 1947?
During the British Raj,most of India was divided into 600 princely states which after Independence were given the option to join India or Pakistan.Based on geographical and religious factors, states joined either India or Pakistan.Bhutan chose to become independent and Hyderabad was taken into the Union by sending in the army.During the period 1947-50,the princely states were absorbed into the various provinces.A few like the states of Mysore,Hyderabad,Bhopal and Bilaspur became independent provinces.
What changes were made to the states when India became a republic?
When the constitution came into force on January 26,1950,India became a union of states (earlier called provinces) with extensive autonomy and Union territories administered by the Central Govt. Under the constitution, there were 3 kinds of states nine Part A states, eight Part B states and ten Part C states. Part A states were former governors provinces in British India Assam,West Bengal,Bihar,Bombay,Madhya Pradesh,Madras,Orissa,Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.Part B states were the former princely states such as Hyderabad,Saurashtra,Mysore,Travancore-Cochin,Madhya Bharat,Vindhya Pradesh,Patiala & East Punjab States Union and Rajasthan.Part C states included a few princely states as well as former provinces governed by chief commissioners such as Kutch,Himachal Pradesh,Coorg,Manipur,Tripura and so on.Jammu and Kashmir had special status.
How did language become the basis for organizing states?
The movement to create states based on language gained momentum in early 1950s starting with demand for a separate state for Telugu-speaking people.A Rly employee and Gandhian, Potti Sriramulu, started a fast to press the demand.Nehru chose to ignore Sriramulus fast. On the 56th day of his fast, Sriramulu died and violence erupted.After Sriramulus death,the States Reorganisation Commission was appointed for the creation of states on linguistic lines.On the basis of its report,the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 was passed.Under the Act,which came into effect on November 1,1956,the distinction between part A,B,and C states was eliminated and state boundaries were reorganized and new states and union territories were created or dissolved.There were 14 states and seven union territories.
How did the states take their present shape?
Language continued to be the basis for new states as in 1960 Bombay was split into Maharashtra and Gujarat.Ethnicity then became the new basis for demands of statehood and Nagaland was carved out of Assam.Punjab was split to form two more states Haryana and Himachal Pradesh in 1966.More changes took place when Meghalaya,Manipur and Tripura were granted statehood in 1972 and former UTs, Goa, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh were elevated to states in 1987.The most recent reorganization was in 2000 when Uttarakhand,Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand were created.
When did the demand for a separate Telangana start?
In 1948,the Nizam was ousted and Hyderabad was formed as a state of India.After the movement for a state on a linguistic basis,Andhra Pradesh was formed by merging the Telangana part of Hyderabad with then Andhra state,carved out of Madras presidency. Andhra was socially and economically more developed.Supporters of Telangana movement felt the merger would only increase their misery.The first mass scale separate Telangana movement was started by students of Osmania University in 1969 but was suppressed by the government.The movement claimed over 300 lives.
================================
Decision to quit part of larger T strategy: KK
CWC Member and Rajya Sabha MP K Keshava Rao on Sunday said the intention of elected Congress representatives including MPs,MLAs and MLCs and ministers to resign from their respective posts is part of a larger strategy to achieve statehood to Telangana. Speaking to media,the CWC member said that though the Srikrishna Committee had given a confusing report,it has not downplayed the genuine demand of the people of the region for a separate state.The Srikrishna Committee has recognised our demand.We are reiterating our uncompromising demand for the introduction of Telangana bill during the budget session of Parliament.We are not going to accept anything less than Telangana state,and that too with Hyderabad as its capital.Our future course of action will be announced after the crucial January 11 meeting of Congress elected representatives who will discuss in detail the Srikrishna committee report, he said.
Rao said he was trying to hold parleys with Seemandhra leaders with a view to convincing them to agree to Telangana peoples genuine demand for a separate state. No one needs to have apprehensions about his or her safety in the new state.We assure non-Telangana people residing in the region of all safety, he said. Rao also reiterated demand for immediate recall of police forces on the OU campus, saying, The presence of police personnel in such large numbers is intimidating and there is no need for their presence on the campus. He took serious objection to reports in a section of the media that the state would come under the Presidents rule.What can I say I feel this will be the most unfortunate thing ever to happen in AP.There is no truth in these reports.Such statements are uncalled for, he said.
=============================
(source-toi)
No comments:
Post a Comment