To
The chairman,
Group of Ministers (GoM) on AP bifurcation
( feedbacktogom-mha@nic.in )
Sir,
Following is my feed back and suggestions over proposed
bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh :
“Small is beautiful ! Good things come in small packages. It may be
an effective line to sell consumer
goods, but when it comes to serving the cause of the smaller states of the
Indian Union, certainly not….”
At
the outset, I firmly express my opinion that creation of new smaller states in
India is a ‘failed concept’ . The creation of a new state can show various
avenues to the politically unemployed persons in that region but the common man
in both the mother state and daughter state will fetch nothing. The fate of the lastly created 3 states in India proves the same.
Uttarakhand: When floods devastated the state recently, the state
administration was completely helpless and all the help rendered to the flood
victims was executed with the outside support only. The Andhra Pradesh state government itself
had made its own arrangement to trace out and bring back the stranded Andhra
pilgrims from that state.
Chhattisgarh: Even after 13 years of creation of
state, this is state has continued to face serious internal security problems
particularly from the Maoists. The
Govt. was helpless when maoists attacked and killed about 28 Congress and Salwa
judum leaders on 25.05.2013. The state has not been able to control and even contain
successfully the violence and extortions perpetrated by the Naxalites thereby
causing a huge demand and burden on the resources of both the state and Central
exchequer.
Jharkhand: The most politically unstable state
in India. In a short span of 13 years, 5 persons were chaired as Chief Minister
in 9 spells and in between those spells, the state undergone president Rule 3
times. Also Its economic performance has been dipping steadily and the internal
security problems created by the Maoists/Naxals continue to exist. The unemployment
in the state presently is also among the highest in the country.
At this situation, creation of a new State is
not a wise decision at all. Sri LK Advani, senior BJP leader rejected the
proposal for creation of Telangana State when he was Honble Union Home
Minister. He also confirmed that – Govt. of India is of the view that
regional disparities in economic development can be tackled through planning
and efficient use of available resources. (copy of letter enclosed). Now, the same BJP party is supporting the
creation of Telangana.
This
is a clear example of how the political parties are taking U turns on their
stand in creating a new State. BJP is only an example. All the political parties are taking several
U turns and not at all consistent in their decision for creation of Telangana. Based on the letters issued by such political
parties, Congress party decided to go for division of Andhra Pradesh state
which is not at all acceptable to majority of the people in the state. In fact, there is no consensus in the
congress party itself over the proposal for division of state. The Chief Minister of the Andhra Pradesh who
belongs to the same Congress party was not taken into confidence before
proceeding for division of the State.
Then how the Congress party has moral right to proceed with division
based on the letters issued by other
parties??
Moreover,
the above mentioned 3 states were created after their mother state Assemblies
pass unanimous resolutions for bifurcation of their state and there is no
opposition for creation of new state in either part of the mother state. But
the situation in Andhra Pradesh is completely different. Majority part of the
state is strongly opposing the division
of the state. In spite of the severe opposition, Union Governement proposed
division of the State in unilateral manner even without a resolution from the
Andhra Pradesh Assembly. It is a fact
that Central Government has power under Article 3 of the constitution for
creation of a new state but that discretionary power should not be exercised against the causes and concerns of the people
pertaining to one region. The next important thing is Capital. This is first time in India that a part of a
state comprising of the developed capital willing to separate and the Central
Govt. accepting the same without bothering the interests of the remaining part
of the state.
The Union Government has constituted Sri Krishna Committee in 2010 to examine the
situation in the State of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the demand for a
separate State of Telangana as well as the demand for maintaining the present
status of a United Andhra Pradesh. The said Committee has taken feed back not
only from political parties but also from people from all regions of the state
and submitted its report after scientifically analyzing the feed back received
by them. The report of the Sri Krishna
Committee was not tabled in the Parliament and proper discussion was not done
in the statutory bodies regarding the suggestions given by the Sri Krishna
Committee on the issue.
Sri
Krishna Committee has suggested to create Telangana state with Hyderabad as its
capital and Seemandhra to have a new capital as one of its six suggestions –
but only as the second best option and the separation is recommended only in
case it is unavoidable and if this decision can be reached amicable among all
the three regions. But without taking
considerations of the concerns of seemandhra regions, Union Government proposed
unilateral division proposal which is not only favourable to Telengana region
but also a big jolt to the other 2 regions of the State. While announcing the
bifurcation proposal, Central Government has promised to take due
considerations for concerns of the seemandhra region. But even without settling the Capital issue,
and without announcing any relief to the seemandhra region, Union cabinet
approved the Note for bifurcation of the State on 03.10.2013. A prominent issue like the bifurcation of a
State was not included in the agenda for cabinet meeting and the same was put
up as table item in the meeting and was approved in a hurry. The way in which the said note was approved
in the Cabinet was improper.
- Even though it was proposed that
Hyderabad will be common capital for 10 years and it is expected to
construct a new capital during this period, which is not at all feasible. Today,
Hyderabad is the fully developed capital of the Andhra Pradesh state
serving the needs of the people of 23 districts. There is no other city in Andhra Pradesh
comparable to Hyderabad in any aspect. All the
infrastructural/commercial/educational/IT sector development was
concentrated in and around Hyderabad city only. In this position, without showing
suitable exact alternative to Hyderabad, bifurcation process is not at all
acceptable to the seemandhra region.
2. Article 371 (D) was inserted in the Constitution by 32nd Constitutional amendment to do justice to the people living in various zones of Andhra Pradesh state. The central Government has no power to invoke Article 3 for creating the new state of Telangana without winding up the clause under Article 371 (D). In
the 32nd amendment to the Constitution, two new articles -- 371 (D) and 371 (E)
-- were inserted with the header, ‘Special provisions with respect to Andhra
Pradesh’. This amendment was then inserted into the 7th schedule of the Indian
Constitution which deals with the Union list, state list and the concurrent list.
Article 368 clearly states that if any change is to be made under the 7th
schedule, then it has to be adopted by a special majority. Both houses of
Parliament have to pass the Bill with a two thirds majority. Such an amendment
also has to be ratified by state legislatures. This means 50 per cent of the
states have to give their nod in case the amendment has to be ratified. Thus, the Parliament would need a national
consensus on the Constitutional Amendment to create Telangana. The states of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and
Chattisgarh were carved out of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh
respectively by the National Democratic Alliance under the provisions of
Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Indian Constitution. The creation of these states
did not pose too much of a constitutional hassle as there was no special
provision mentioned, as in the case of Andhra Pradesh. Without considering
all these jargon, Ministry of Home Affairs is hastily moving the division
process.
- The pro- Telangana political
parties and forums are blaming the Seemandhra people for the neglect of
Telangana region and are offering tall promises after the creation of the
new State. However, the fact remains that it would not be possible to
fulfill all these promises due to inherent factors. This does not imply
that there would be no additional job opportunities and promotional
avenues in the new State. Although the emotional aspirations of the people
of Telangana to have their own State will be satisfied, economic
expectations, including enhanced job opportunities which they expect, may
not actually materialize. This may lead to frustration among the youth,
professionals and even farmers. This frustration may lead to ‘ scape-
goating’, leading to targeted attacks on Seemandhra settlers and their
properties.
- There are so many separatist
movements in the country like Gorkhaland, bodoland, vidarbha, etc. which
are in sleeping mode now. By
creating a new state will now definitely make them to rise again and
demands and agitations for so many smaller states will hamper the development and peace of the
nation. Moreover, Uttar Pradesh assembly already made a resolution to
bifurcate their state and sent to Central Government earlier. Keeping that issue pending, which is in
advanced stage, the Central
Government is making proposals for division of Andhra Pradesh where there
is no resolution from its Assembly.
- The Maoists are also likely to
gain by the creation of a new state. It will be difficult for the new state
to handle them with a bifurcated police force contributing to a weaker
response to the problem. Telangana is
contiguous with other highly affected Maoist areas viz.,
Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra States. As such it is likely that the Maoists
will extend their activities from these neighbouring states to Telangana,
especially the districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam, parts
of Nizamabad and Medak in north Telangana and Mahboobnagar and Nalgonda in
south Telangana. It is important to note that it is not entirely a coincidence
that the increased spread of Maoist violence in Chhattisgarh and
Jharkhand, has been after the creation of these states.
The
proposed bifurcation is not only strongly being opposed by the majority of the people
in Andhra Pradesh state but also by the present Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh who already represented Hon’ble President of India and Prime Minister
of India to intervene in the matter and to halt
the bifurcation process which is against the constitutional guidelines. Still,
if the Government feels the Division of Andhra Pradesh is inevitable, the
following may be the best possible solution for addressing the concerns of all
the 3 regions in the United Andhra Pradesh state :
The
permanent capital for the Andhra and Telangana
states should be Hyderabad and Hyderabad should be made an Union
Territory with extended limits as proposed in 4th suggestion of Sri
Krishna Committee Report. The larger
Union Territory of Hyderabad shoud be created
by connecting Hyderabad ( HMDA) with Guntur ( Coastal Andhra) in South- East and Kurnool ( Rayalaseema) in
the South via Nalgonda and Mahboob Nagar (both Telangana districts)
respectively through creation of appropriate corridors by merging a few Mandals
with Hyderabad ( HMDA). This proposal
links Hyderabad to all the three regions of the State so that these regions
have geographical contiguity and physical access to Hyderabad which is a key issue in the bottleneck. While larger Union Territory of Hyderabad to
be governed with a Legislative Assembly and a Lt. Governor may have the
advantage of addressing the issue relating to the status of Hyderabad and may
even make Hyderabad Megapolis, an economic giant in due course and in the
process help the border towns of all the three regions to grow substantially.
