రాష్ట్ర విభజన పై మంత్రుల కమిటీ(GoM) కి నేను ఇచ్చిన మెయిల్..

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.

1. 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. 

    

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 4^th 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.