TELANGAN ISSUE

T-Bill does not need Constitution amendment

The government appears determined to push through the Telangana Bill in Parliament, despite clear opinion by two law officers that a constitutional amendment is required to create the new State by bifurcating Andhra Pradesh.

After the oral opinion by the law officers, the government on Wednesday referred the matter to the Law Ministry, which gave a contrasting view and said: “The Bill to create Telangana does not require constitutional amendment and the new State can be carved out by a simple majority in Parliament.”

Highly placed sources told The Hindu that the government approached a top law officer a couple of days ago and sought his advice on whether the Bill could be introduced in the Lok Sabha in its present form. He gave the view that for introducing a Bill under Article 3, no constitutional amendment would be required. But after bifurcation, a constitutional amendment would be required to ensure that the existing protection under Article 371 D and E was continued in both States.

Article 371 D lays down special provisions for giving equal opportunities in education and employment to the people of Hyderabad and it needs to be extended to the new State as well. For passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill, the government needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which is possible only with the BJP’s support. Officials rejected this opinion and said they would seek the advice of the Ministry, which gave a favourable opinion.

Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati had earlier suggested that before creating Telangana, the Parliament needs to repeal Article 371 D and E of the Constitution by introducing an amendment as envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution so that the existing benefits would be applicable to both the States.

T-Bill not tabled, insists Sushma

The Opposition on Thursday contested the statements by Ministers and UPA floor managers that the Telangana Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha after Speaker Meira Kumar allowed it to be introduced.

The Opposition said all rules and norms were given the go-by as the government went ahead with the introduction of the Bill hastily for narrow political gains.

On the rules for introduction of a Bill, the view is that it is entirely a matter of the Speaker’s discretion to decide on the order of the agenda to be followed for the day.

The former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, Subash Kashyap, told The Hindu : “Irrespective of the listed business and the agenda on the business, the Speaker has powers to waive rules to allow introduction of a Bill or to take up any other agenda.”

‘Not listed’

Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj complained that the Bill for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh was not listed on the agenda circulated. “Under the normal procedure, at the end of question hour, the first item on the agenda is to lay papers listed in the order paper on the table of the House. This was not done.”

She said: “Some members had served a no-trust move notice, which, in the normal course, has to be disposed of before any other item is taken up. We were not notified even through the supplementary list of business about the tabling of the Andhra Pradesh bifurcation Bill. As far as we are concerned, it has not been tabled. We learnt about the introduction of the Bill only after the House was adjourned amid pandemonium.”

However, Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde, who introduced the Bill, asserted that it was tabled and now it was “the property of the House.” Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath and Law Minister Kapil Sibal also said the Bill had been introduced. Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K. Chandrashekhar Rao echoed their views.

Salient features of A.P. Reorganisation Bill

The Bill envisages Hyderabad as the common capital. The Andhra Pradesh Governor will be Governor for both successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

The common capital includes the existing area notified as Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Centre shall form expert committee to suggest a new capital of Andhra Pradesh within 45 days.

The Centre will set up an apex council for the supervision of Krishna and Godavari rivers on water sharing.

25 Lok Sabha seats to be allocated to residuary Andhra Pradesh and 17 Lok Sabha seats to Telangana.

Residuary Andhra Pradesh will get 175 Legislative Assembly seats and Telangana 119.

Existing admission quotas in all government or private, aided or unaided institutions of higher, technical and medical education shall continue for 10 years during which common admission process shall continue.

The Polavaram Irrigation Project will be declared as a national project and the Centre will take under its control the regulation and development and the Tungabhadra Board will continue to monitor the release of water to high level canal, low level canal and Rajolibanda diversion scheme.

The High Court at Hyderabad will be common for both States till a separate High Court is set up for residuary Andhra Pradesh.

Any dispute, regarding financial assets and liabilities, shall be settled through mutual agreement failing which by the Centre’s order on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

All properties situated outside existing Andhra Pradesh will be apportioned between the successor States on the basis of population ratio.

Greyhound and OCTOPUS forces of the existing Andhra Pradesh will be distributed after seeking opinions from the personnel and each of these forces.

The award made by the 13th Finance Commission to the existing State of Andhra Pradesh will be apportioned between the successor States by the Centre on the basis of population and other parameters.

Telangana conundrum: Political expediency cannot guide the creation of new states

With disruptions marring the first day of the last Parliament session before 2014 Lok Sabha elections, hopes of substantive legislative business are fast evaporating. Contributing to the sense of despair is an impasse over Telangana. The Bill for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and creation of a new Telangana state is slated to be introduced in the current parliamentary session. But with its own Andhra MPs and MLAs - including Andhra chief minister Kiran Reddy - opposing bifurcation, the ruling Congress is caught in a cleft stick.

Should Congress pull back now the political implications for it would be grave. The party would risk decimation in the Lok Sabha polls in Andhra with K C Rao's Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) sweeping in the Telangana region and the united Andhra vote benefiting TDP and Jaganmohan Reddy`s YSR Congress in Seemandhra. On the other hand, should Congress press ahead with bifurcation it would write off Seemandhra completely and hedge its bets on the 17 Lok Sabha seats in Telangana.

BJP had previously voiced vociferous support for Telangana. But seeing an opportunity to trip up Congress in an election year, it is now calling for an enhanced package for Seemandhra. Telangana opponents, including Jaganmohan Reddy, are leveraging the issue for upcoming Lok Sabha polls. TRS added fuel to the fire by raising parochial demands such as asking government employees from Seemandhra to leave Telangana. Rao ought to have been more statesman-like and gone out of his way to assuage the concerns of those from Seemandhra and residents of Hyderabad. He too has made a signal contribution to the current impasse.

The pro-statehood argument that Telangana has been discriminated against economically doesn't wash either. The Srikrishna committee report found that Rayalaseema, not Telangana, was the most economically disadvantaged of the three Andhra regions. As things stand, there are difficult issues in the formation of Telangana. They are further compounded by a hyper-politicised atmosphere as elections approach and other parties have an interest in stalling Congress.

A solution to the Telangana imbroglio will likely have to await the conduct of general elections. A states reorganisation commission to look into economic and administrative viability of new statehood demands is called for. Greater devolution of administrative powers from state governments to grassroots bodies can also work wonders in alleviating local grievances.

Blacked out

Passing Telangana bill in the dark is anti-democratic. Lok Sabha speaker has a lot to answer for.

Nearly five years after it was abruptly promised, the manner of the passing of the Telangana bill in the Lok Sabha has posed a disconcerting question mark over the functioning of Parliament. Apparently wary of violent disruption by partisans of a united Andhra Pradesh, the speaker directed that the live cameras that beam out the House’s proceedings be switched off. In the process, she shut off people’s access to the conduct of their representatives during the passing of a highly consequential bill. It was eventually passed with scores of amendments, by a voice vote. Though the cameras have been switched off earlier amid unruly scenes in the House, there has been no instance, since they were introduced, of an entire bill being passed by closing off the proceedings to the public.

The bill to split Andhra Pradesh was always going to be difficult to negotiate on the floor of the House. For that, a large part of the blame must be owned by the leadership of the Congress party. At every step, it has demonstrated poor judgement and worse leadership. Instead of building a consensus from the ground up, dividing resources fairly and openly, and investing political skill and labour in negotiating an acceptable division, the party leadership overrode dissent and ignored legislative norms. Not surprisingly, therefore, on its way to Parliament, the Telangana bill has been intensely resisted in Seemandhra, and the Andhra Pradesh assembly has squarely rejected it.

Also, given that the number of Telangana legislators is lower than the number of those from Seemandhra, whose careers and constituencies are at stake, there have been ignominious scenes in the House, including last week’s pepper spray scuffle. But no matter what her assessment or apprehension of the possibility of disruption and uproar during the passage of the bill, the speaker’s decision to switch off the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings was a peremptory violation of the democratic norm of openness. Even though the requisite numbers were finally summoned in favour of the contentious bill, her decision will now loom over its passage as a worrisome precedent.

Live telecast of legislative business has been an established custom for years. It began in a limited way in 1989, then became a 24-hour affair after Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha channels were set up in 2006. These broadcasts are a vital tool of transparency that make the institution less remote and allow citizens to keep a watch on their representatives. On Tuesday, that compact between Parliament and the people was violated in an arbitrary manner.

Telangana Bill stuck in Rajya Sabha

The Bill for the creation of Telangana, approved by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, hit an unexpected roadblock in the Rajya Sabha with the BJP insisting that without a simultaneous Constitutional amendment, the validity of the Bill could be challenged in a court of law.

The BJP stance forced the government not to introduce the Bill in the Rajya Sabha even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and several UPA ministers were busy holding consultations with BJP leaders to convince them that there was no need for a Constitutional amendment.

At the centre of the controversy is the interpretation on the special powers conferred on the Governor on issues related to law and order in Hyderabad, which would be the joint capital for a maximum of 10 years. The BJP’s case is that special powers given to the Governor on issues related to law and order for residents of Hyderabad under the proposed Act are in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution as law and order is a State subject.

Though the government chose not to introduce the Bill, it was the cause for several disruptions on Wednesday. There was high drama with Telugu Desam Party member C.M. Ramesh pushing Secretary General Shumsher K. Sheriff in the morning hours, leading to immediate adjournment. The member later apologised and was let off.

Besides a Constitutional amendment, the BJP also wants a special package for Seemandhra. After the Lok Sabha approved the Bill on Tuesday with the support of the BJP, Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj while expressing unhappiness over the manner in which it was handled in the Lok Sabha, had announced that her party would move some amendments in the Rajya Sabha.

Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who wants the Rajya Sabha to pass the Bill on Thursday, responded to the BJP’s demand by requesting the Prime Minister to give Seemandhra special category status.

Kiran Reddy bows out

Declaring his innings as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh over, N. Kiran Kumar Reddy submitted his resignation to Governor E.S.L. Narasimhan on Wednesday in protest against the Union government’s decision to “divide Telugus for the sake of votes and seats.”

Ending his 39-month reign, Mr. Reddy announced that he was quitting the Congress and the membership of the Assembly. He assumed office on November 25, 2010.

Before proceeding to Raj Bhavan to hand over his resignation, Mr. Reddy accused the Congress leadership of colluding with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to ensure passage of the Bill.

He evaded a reply when asked if he was floating a party, and said he would announce his future course of action in a few days after consulting supporters.

Since the passage of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013, in the Lok Sabha, the support base of Mr. Reddy had seen an erosion.

Raj Bhavan sources said Mr. Reddy’s resignation was accepted. The Governor reportedly asked him to continue in office till alternative arrangements were made.

Mr. Reddy proceeded to the camp office amid reports over the possibility of clamping President’s rule in the State as the political atmosphere was not fully conducive to elect a new leader of the Congress Legislature Party.

There was mixed reactions to the resignation with Seemandhra leaders saying it was the right decision while their Telangana counterparts claiming it was inconsequential at this juncture.

But amid simmering discontent over the leadership’s decision, several Ministers and elected representatives began putting in their papers. This could trigger a large-scale exodus to the TDP and the YSR Congress. A bandh was observed in 13 districts of the Seemandhra region in response to a call given by the YSR Congress Party.

29th STATE JUST A SIGNATURE AWAY

With the Rajya Sabha putting its seal of approval on the Bill for creating Telangana amid bedlam, the birth of the 29th State of the Union is just a presidential signature away.

The historic development was preceded by prolonged “labour pangs” beginning from July 30 last year, the day the Congress Working Committee (CWC) approved a resolution for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

On Wednesday, there was a great deal of anxiety about the fate of the State as the BJP, which had helped the government push through the Bill in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, put a spanner in the works by insisting that without a Constitution amendment it faces the danger of being legally challenged.

But, thanks to hectic backroom negotiations at the highest level of the government and the BJP, it was smooth sailing in the Upper House despite protests from Seemandhra MPs, who parked themselves in the Well of the House throughout the day with banners and placards. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team of Ministers succeeded in persuading top BJP leaders not to press for a Constitution amendment, which would have complicated the process.

Mr. Singh’s team convinced the BJP brass that the government was on sound legal footing on giving special powers to the Governor over safety and security of the residents of Hyderabad, which will be the joint capital for a maximum of 10 years.

It was the understanding between the government and the BJP which prompted CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury and all others who opposed the Bill to describe it as a classic case of “match-fixing.”

At the meeting, it was agreed that the Prime Minister would announce a package to address the concerns of the Seemandhra people as well as those in the backward regions of Telangana.

Intervening in the debate in the Rajya Sabha, the Prime Minister announced that for the purposes of Central assistance, special category status would be extended to the successor state of Andhra Pradesh for five years. He said the Centre would take steps to offer tax incentives to promote industrialisation and economic growth in both States.

In addition, a special development package for the backward regions of the successor state of Andhra Pradesh, in particular the districts of Rayalaseema and north-coastal Andhra Pradesh, will be given on the lines of the K-B-K (Koraput-Bolangir-Kalahandi) Special Plan in Odisha and the Bundelkhand special package in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

Speaking about the commitment of his party to creating Telangana, Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley expressed dismay over the manner in which the UPA had handled the entire issue.

Initiating the debate, the BJP’s M. Venkaiah Naidu said: “Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are brothers and are Telugu-speaking. Telangana people want Telangana, we are saying yes... We are not dividing the country; we are only dividing a state for speedy development.”

He blamed the Congress for delaying the creation of Telangana and playing “vote bank” and “opportunistic” politics.

Telangana, at last

After years of struggle, and several rounds of agitation, Telangana is set to come into being — as the 29th State of India. That some pain and suffering would accompany the bifurcation was, perhaps, inevitable; but a great deal of the violence and acrimony could have been avoided had the Congress and the Central government acted with greater sensitivity and understanding of the hopes and fears of the peoples in the two regions. But now is the time to look ahead, and try and fulfil the aspirations of the people of Telangana and allay the apprehensions of those of Seemandhra, or the residual Andhra Pradesh state. The residual state is to get special category status for the purpose of Central assistance, and its backward regions will be eligible for a special development package. But concerns still persist about the security of lives and livelihoods of non-Telangana people in Hyderabad, which will be the joint capital of both the states for 10 years. The decision to invest special law and order powers in the Governor to ensure the safety of the residents of Hyderabad goes some way in addressing the apprehensions of those from Seemandhra seen as “outsiders” in the capital. But doubts have been raised about the propriety of such an arrangement: whether an appointee of the Centre who is not democratically elected by the people of either state could have control over what is essentially a state subject. This arrangement is a compromise between designating Hyderabad as a Union Territory (as demanded by those representing Seemandhra) and making it the capital of Telangana alone. The model is that of Chandigarh, the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana, where the Administrator-cum-Punjab Governor and the Adviser to the Administrator are in charge of law and order. In effect, Hyderabad will be akin to a union territory like Chandigarh in the matter of handling of law and order.

While the creation of Telangana draws the curtains on a long struggle for statehood, disputes and conflicts over sharing of resources and reallocation of personnel loom ahead. The creation of a new capital for the residual state will in no way limit the interests of the people of Seemandhra on Hyderabad, which has drawn investments from people of both regions. There could have been no solution that was agreeable to both sides, but the Centre could have worked out some compromises in consultation with all the stakeholders instead of imposing a reorganisation that merely defers the problems to a later date. Although politically the Congress appears to have put all its eggs in the Telangana basket, the Centre must ensure that the concerns of the Seemandhra people are addressed satisfactorily. Financial packages alone would not solve the problems.

Telangana’s birth may have to wait

Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh may not be possible before the general elections scheduled for April-May. This point assumes significance as the Assembly polls are due along with the Lok Sabha elections.

If one is guided by the creation of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in November 2000, the formation of Telangana ahead of the elections may not be feasible.

The Bill passed by Parliament on Thursday is likely to be referred to President Pranab Mukherjee on Monday. It will become an Act once he gives his approval.

But it does not automatically translate into the birth of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The two will come into existence only after the Union government fixes the “appointed day.”

According to sources, the Election Commission is proceeding on the assumption that the Lok Sabha and AP Assembly elections will be like any in the past. In other words, the division will take place after the completion of the elections.

Congress president Sonia Gandhi told a delegation of Congress leaders, including Union Ministers from Telangana, who called on her to express their gratitude, to reach out to the people of Seemandhra and not to use harsh words against them.

But some of those opposed to the division have still not given up hope. YSR Congress Party chief Jaganmohan Reddy has threatened to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the bifurcation.

Resignation accepted

Governor E.S.L. Narasimhan on Friday accepted the resignation of Chief Minister N. Kiran Kumar Reddy.

A communiqué said Mr. Reddy had submitted his resignation on February 19. “While he accepted the resignation with effect from February 19, he requested Mr. Reddy and his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to continue in office till alternative arrangements are made.”

Meanwhile, Telugu Desam president N. Chandrababu Naidu on Friday kept everyone guessing about his party’s future relationship with the BJP, now that the latter has come to be perceived in Seemandhra as “culprit number two after Congress” in the passage of the Telangana Bill.

Fielding a volley of questions at a press conference, Mr. Naidu said the saffron party did not fight the Bill properly, but he said alliances could not be decided in a fit of emotions.

Language of Andhra politics has to be one of reconciliation: Jairam Ramesh

Union Minister Jairam Ramesh, who was part of the backroom talks with the BJP on passage of the Telangana Bill, on Friday asserted that the government was on a sound legal footing over reservations about the legality of conferring powers related to security of residents of Hyderabad.

The Minister told journalists here on Friday that such fears were misplaced as Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution empowered the Centre to make such provisions, and four Supreme Court judgments had upheld this position for the purpose of reorganisation of States.

Mr. Ramesh argued that there was no merit in the charge that the Congress pressured the government to push through the Bill to reap electoral advantages. In 2004, creation of Telangana was promised in the Congress manifesto in Andhra Pradesh and was included in the National Common Minimum Programme of UPA-I, he said.

Seeking to allay fears that Telangana was being created at the expense of Seemandhra, Mr. Ramesh said there was a lot that united the two States than divided them. “There will be two Telugu-speaking States now and the success of the reorganisation depends on how the governments of the two States interact with each other.” Also, urging politicians to chip in, he added that the “language of Andhra politics has to be one of reconciliation and cooperation, not confrontation.”

With a new academic year round the corner, the Minister said existing admission quotas in educational institutions would continue for 10 years.

Addressing the water concerns of people on the two sides, he said allocations made by the River Water Tribunals with regard to various projects on the Godavari and the Krishna would remain the same, and the Centre would constitute two separate boards for management of the two rivers.

He said a special unit would be created in the Planning Commission to address Seemandhra’s development needs. The Prime Minister’s statement in the Rajya Sabha, he said, was entirely Seemandhra-focused, and deliberately so because he wanted to address the apprehension of the people there.

Seemandhra will also become the 12th State with Special Category Status. The other States in this category are the eight northeastern States, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. The bulk of the Central assistance — 90 per cent — to Seemandhra will be in the form of grant, Mr. Ramesh said, adding that this was done on the intervention of Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi. Seemandhra will have this status for five years.

As for the Polavaram project, he said 90 per cent of the bill would be picked up by the Centre as it would be declared a Central project. The Centre would execute the project and be responsible for all clearances, besides rehabilitation and resettlement.

A new state, in the dark

The Telangana issue is, arguably, one of the toughest confronting our nation. The Srikrishna Committee report guides us through the complexity of the big policy question — what is the best way to ensure development and good governance in the region? The constitutional questions, flowing from Article 3 of the Constitution, are equally complex, going to the heart of India’s federal design. These questions revolve around the constitutional significance of a state legislature’s rejection of a carve-out, the first such rejection in the history of our republic, and the extent to which this should have constrained the powers of Parliament.

Such questions, and the far-reaching implications of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013, should have been extensively debated in the Lok Sabha before the bill was passed. Moreover, these deliberations should have been broadcast to the public. On February 18, however, the bill pushed through in the Lok Sabha on a voice vote, without any contemporaneous broadcast.

Two vital ingredients that give legislative decisions legitimacy in a representative, deliberative democracy were missing. The first was deliberation. Democracy is not about decision-making in a manner that crudely aggregates popular will through legislative balloting. The will of the majority, if it is not tempered by reason, resembles majoritarian tyranny, and the idea that inclusive dialogue is the most effective way of arriving at a rational consensus for the common good is as old as the idea of democracy itself.

Further, the Lok Sabha ought to have deliberated not only on the policy question, but also on the nature and extent of its own powers under Article 3, and how much weight it should give to the state assembly’s rejection of the bill. While the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the Constitution rests with the Supreme Court, its duty to interpret is not exclusive, even if it is final. It is entirely compatible with our constitutional scheme to demand that each of the three arms of our government make judgements on their powers, in order to ensure that constitutional morality does not lose out to political expediency. Swearing allegiance to the Constitution brings with it a shared duty for our legislators to engage with, and arrive at an understanding of, its meaning.

The second missing element was the broadcast of Lok Sabha proceedings, though the blackout was later attributed to a technical glitch. It should be noted that a deliberate blackout of Lok Sabha TV would be both undemocratic and unconstitutional. It would be undemocratic because deliberative democracy involves public deliberation. Opacity reduces autonomy, as preferences are seen to be externally imposed, instead of being shaped by reasoned debate.

On constitutionality, Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, also protects the public’s right to acquire information, as the information we are privy to shapes the way we act and express ourselves, especially in choosing our elected representatives. The Supreme Court has deployed this right to receive information as a reason for judicial interference when state-controlled channels try to filter content (Manubahi Shah, 1992). It also attaches special significance to public scrutiny and information when this impacts elections. As Justice M.B. Shah observed in PUCL vs Union of India (2003), the right to vote would be meaningless “unless the voters are well informed about all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views by casting their vote”. So people have a right to the uninterrupted and contemporaneous broadcast of legislative proceedings, not only to make up their minds about the Telangana issue, but also to decide on who to vote for, based on a legislator’s position on the issue or even her conduct in Parliament. It would also be worth considering whether this right imposes a parallel duty on the Lok Sabha speaker to adjourn proceedings the moment the broadcast blackout is brought to her knowledge, regardless of the cause.

These factors do not impact the constitutional validity of the final statute in a manner that makes it amenable to judicial review. The actual impact is on the perceived legitimacy of Parliament as an institution and, more importantly, on the perceived legitimacy of the statute itself. Not only will it raise doubts for those undecided on the Telangana issue, it may have serious fallouts for the law-and-order situation in Andhra Pradesh. A hastily enacted statute, shielded from the public eye and perceived to have been pushed through for political gain alone, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for those who support the creation of Telangana.

Lessons from Telangana's difficult birth must guide future statehood issues

Having been cleared by Parliament, the formation of Telangana as the 29th state of India is now a matter of formality. However, the circumstances surrounding the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh have evoked mixed feelings. As proponents of Telangana rejoice, those in Seemandhra are anguished by a division that was forced on them. The blame for the less-than-ideal bifurcation squarely lies with political parties and their short-term interests. Despite several Union governments promising Telangana over the years, in the end it was left to a desperate Congress staring at an electoral debacle in Andhra to actualise the statehood demand.

Unlike the last batch of new states — Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh — created in 2000, Telangana's birth has come against the backdrop of legislative chaos and political expediency. Take for example the contentious issue of Hyderabad. The city has been the growth engine of Andhra for the last two decades. It will now serve as joint capital of Telangana and Seemandhra for 10 years before being permanently handed over to the former. Understandably, loss of Hyderabad has huge economic implications for Seemandhra. The city has been a magnet for youth and international corporations alike. Add to this the peculiarity of a new Seemandhra government having to operate from an interim capital city that is 200 km away from the state itself.

In fact, Hyderabad's case also exemplifies successive governments' failure to push urbanization and create new cities. Had Andhra boasted of many Hyderabads, the bifurcation process would have been relatively painless. Several booming cities would have also absorbed armies of unemployed youth that are used by political parties to press for parochial demands. Alas, established political wisdom continues to be to milk cities in order to fund populist schemes in villages for votes.

True, the government has promised a special financial package for Seemandhra. But this is bound to provoke similar demands from other state governments. Bihar has already called for a bandh over the Centre's failure to grant it special status. Given that such packages essentially mean burdening other states for the sake of the beneficiaries, they are inherently discriminatory. Following such a policy would further hinder the desirable goal of creating a common market by getting states to sign on to a uniform goods and services tax regime.

Besides, the creation of Telangana could embolden other statehood demands across the country. That Gorkhaland and Vidarbha could be next in line was highlighted by Trinamool and Shiv Sena legislators vociferously opposing the bifurcation of Andhra in Parliament.

While smaller states arguably make administration easier, they also create problems down the line which need to be tackled. New states alone are not a solution, unless we also address other issues staring us in the face such as urbanization, industrialization and greater devolution of administrative and financial powers to grassroots bodies (including urban municipal bodies). Unless we do this, Telangana may well settle down but other crises will develop.

Telangana's Message-EPW

The troubled formation of India's 29th state suggests the need for a new States' Reorganisation Commission.

It has taken more than four years of a raucous and very ill-tempered process since the first formal announcement on the creation of the new state of Telangana for Parliament to approve the division of Andhra Pradesh (AP). Ever since the then minister of home affairs, P Chidambaram, made a statement on 9 December 2009 that the Government of India would initiate the process for bifurcation of AP, the government has faced determined opposition from political leaders of coastal Andhra Pradesh and Rayalaseema, which are together now termed Seemandhra. The shrillness of the opposition from some political leaders of Seemandhra to the formation of Telangana contrasts sharply with the calm response in 2004 when the Congress came to power both in Hyderabad and New Delhi in alliance with the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) on an agreement to form the new state. What changed in the intervening decade to cause so much anger in Seemandhra to Telangana?

One clear answer is that for most of the politicians of Seemandhra, the Congress Party’s alliance with the TRS and declaration of support for Telangana was seen to be part of “normal” politics, i e, not to be taken seriously and never to be implemented. It was following this script that various committees were formed and the issue was sought to be driven into legal and political quicksand so that it would eventually disappear into irrelevance. In this the Congress (and other political parties) were playing out the script written by Indira Gandhi who in the late 1960s and early 1970s used a dependable mixture of repression, electoral dealmaking and concessions to bury the demand for Telangana. By the time of the last general elections in the summer of 2009, it appeared that this strategy had again paid dividends as the TRS was politically discredited and electorally marginalised while most political parties paid lip service to the formation of Telangana, much like they do to poverty eradication.

Two things changed the script. The first was the Telugu Desam Party’s (TDP) formal support for Telangana statehood and its alliance with the TRS, as its leader N Chandrababu Naidu tried to unseat his rival and Congress leader Y S Rajasekhara Reddy from chief ministership. He failed to do so but the latter’s death created the troubled conditions in which the demand for Telangana was revived. By December 2009, there was simmering anger in the Telangana region against the back-room parleys and political opportunism which was again derailing the demand for a separate state. The Congress, the TDP, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Communist Party of India (and later the YSR Congress) had all formally declared their support for a separate Telangana, but were working to scuttle it. That is when the demand spilled over to the streets of Telangana and it became clear that the human and political costs of denying separate statehood were going to be impossible to bear. In one sense, the success of Telangana is a defeat of the amoral politics which has so blighted this country, a politics which says one thing in public and does the opposite inside ministerial chambers, a politics which demeans political activism by making it a synonym for power-broking, a politics which considers the citizens to be a mindless herd swayed by glib words and crumbs from the table of power and privilege.

But other than a defeat of such cynical and opportunist politics, the demand for Telangana also indicates a larger process in the political economy of India. The gross domestic product (GDP) of some of the larger and economically more prosperous states of India is now more than the entire country’s GDP at the time of the reorganisation of the states in the mid-1950s. The processes unleashed by the various agricultural and rural economy initiatives over the last five decades have had a profound impact on landholdings, agricultural patterns, commodification and market penetration, and most importantly, in the class and social relations of rural India. Similar is the story with the growth and transformation of the manufacturing and service sectors, the emergence and consolidation of new classes and the processes of urbanisation. New and deeper forms of political activism and democratisation, the growth in literacy, communications and mobility, all have profoundly transformed over the past five decades since when the states were reorganised on linguistic lines. In short, the body has outgrown the clothes it had worn five decades ago; India’s federal framework is becoming increasingly out of sync with its new political economy, India’s politics is becoming increasingly out of sync with the framework of political parties it has, and so on and so forth.

In other words, the demand for Telangana may have a lineage which goes back to the formation of the linguistic states, but today it represents social classes and political aspirations which are largely new – the number of voters in AP has grown four times, the size of the economy by many multiples, and the literacy rate has increased from the low 20s to the high 60s, etc. It makes sense for smaller political units, not just in AP but in many other states of the Indian union. It is time for a renewed national conversation about our federalism and the structures which underpin our polity and administration. The churn one witnesses in electoral politics is perhaps an expression of the same transformations which have fuelled the demand for Telangana. A second States’ Reorganisation Commission will also help smaller nationalities like Gorkhaland, which do not have the electoral muscle to force their demand through. More states of the union neither lead to a weaker country nor weaker provinces. Rather, it may well help strengthen the union by democratising it further.

The New Telangana State

A Perspective for Inclusive and Sustainable Development

A new social framework which is participatory and accountable to stakeholders is a prerequisite for inclusive and sustainable development of the new state of Telangana which is to be created soon. The socio-economic challenges are in providing land security to the tribals, expanding surface irrigation, creating power-generating capacity and in providing better state provision of health and education services.

C H Hanumantha Rao (chennamaneni@cess.ac.in) is chancellor of the University of Hyderabad, and honorary professor, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.

The imminent formation of the new state of Telangana promises to address and fulfil the long cherished hopes and aspirations of over 35 million people. The merger of the former Hyderabad state with the Indian union in 1948 marked the end of feudalism and opened up a vista of opportunities for development for the people of Telangana. But not much time was a­llowed for social change and transformation in Telangana before it was merged with the Andhra region to constitute the state of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Telangana’s merger with the more resourceful, educated, skilled and politically dominant Seemandhra, far from releasing local initiative and enterprise, gave rise to new tensions and universal discontent among the people of Telangana consisting largely of weaker or disadvantaged sections, e g, scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and minorities, who constitute nearly 90% of the total population.

With the creation of Telangana, there would be high expectations from the common people for their economic betterment and for opportunities to participate in shaping their destinies. Nothing short of a new social framework that a­llows inclusive and participatory development would be able to meet these a­spirations. This is desirable as well as workable. A sociopolitical arrangement that allows the common people to share political power and responsibilities at various levels would enable them to a­rticulate their real problems and explore workable solutions in keeping with local resource endowments. Such an arrangement would also enable them to see the possibilities and limitations of development with the available resources and can elicit constructive effort from them, ensuring stability and social harmony.

Inclusiveness could not be achieved in the bigger state of Andhra Pradesh b­ecause the voice of the disadvantaged sections was fragmented. Experience shows that the traditionally entrenched interests are perpetuated in bigger and heterogeneous states, because of their access to large resources, power and influence. The weaker sections, on the other hand, can come together, organise themselves and raise their voice effectively in a relatively homogeneous state because of common history and traditions and hence an easy ability to communicate with each other.

Social Composition of Population

The tribal population is the most disadvantaged section socially and economically with a negligible political voice. They live in remote areas and are subjected to land alienation on a large scale. Hardly any initiative was taken in Andhra Pradesh to restore their lands d­espite the strong recommendations made by a high-level committee headed by Koneru Ranga Rao, a minister, constituted by the government. There, the administration is alienated from the people and so the area has been one where extremist activities have taken root. This has been treated not as a socio-economic issue, but mainly as a “law and order” problem. Because of this, the plight of the girijans (adivasis) has been perpetuated and the extremist activities have been surfacing time and again, notwithstanding the claims of “success” in this regard by the authorities.

According to the 2011 Census, the ST population constituted around 9.3% in Telangana as against 5.3% in the residual state of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, as much as 60% of the ST population of undivided Andhra Pradesh is concentrated in Telangana. Their voice can be expected to be more effective in the state of Telangana, not the least because their representation in the state legislature and other elected bodies at different levels would be proportionately greater. SCs account for about 15.4% of population in Telangana as against 17% in the residual state of Andhra Pradesh.

The population of Muslims was as high as 12.5% according to the 2001 Census in Telangana when compared to 6.9% in Seemandhra. As many as 61% of Muslims of undivided Andhra Pradesh live in Telangana, of whom 60% are spread over different districts other than Hyderabad. They too can be expected to have greater political clout in Telangana state in determining their fortunes as they can more easily relate themselves to the rest of the disadvantaged sections of the society in the struggle for a better and more secure livelihood. Social harmony between people professing different religions and speaking different languages has been proverbial in Telangana because of their shared history and traditions spanning over centuries (Rao 2010).

Radical land reforms were the prime agenda of the peasant movement in Telangana in the 1940s. However, not enough time was available for this process of agrarian reforms and social transformation to run its course. In fact, it was interrupted and there was some retrogression following the integration of Telangana with the Andhra region. In a larger and heterogeneous state like A­ndhra Pradesh, there was neither adequate perception of this problem nor a willingness to address it by the dominant political leadership which hailed basically from the developed region.

Thus, the weaker sections constituting the large majority of population in Telangana state and, for that matter, in the residual state of Andhra Pradesh would be better able to articulate their problems and politically assert themselves in smaller and relatively homogeneous states. The creation of Telangana state would thus strengthen the forces of social inclusion in both the states.

Feasibility of Inclusive Governance

The population of Telangana is over 35 million now – much more than 30 million for the whole of Andhra Pradesh, including Telangana, at the time of its formation in 1956. The demands on governance have multiplied over this half a century. Apart from commitment to the development of the region, a smaller state being more easily accessible to the common people can intelligently and speedily grapple with their problems.

Moreover, governance at the grass roots can be improved by ensuring greater accountability of performance through the panchayati raj institutions. But the devolution of functions, finances and functionaries to these institutions in the undivided state was far from adequate. A devolution index, constructed by including the above parameters, was much lower for Andhra Pradesh (50.1) when compared to the other southern states, e g, Kerala (75), Karnataka (69.5) and Tamil Nadu (67.1) (Reddy 2012). It is indeed ironical that in the undivided Andhra Pradesh, those in power owing allegiance to Rajiv Gandhi, who visualised the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution, did not take any initiative to strengthen these institutions. On the contrary, attempts were made to undermine them by floating several top-down schemes and parallel implementation structures, even naming some of these schemes after Rajiv Gandhi! In smaller and relatively homogeneous states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the empowerment of these local elected institutions can be expected to be high on the agenda, not the least because of the greater pressures these elected representatives can bring to bear on the new establishments.

The above social framework is a pre-requisite for setting up an appropriate agenda for inclusive development and for the effective implementation of programmes by ensuring accountability to stakeholders at different levels (Dawra 2012). The key areas of development which suffered neglect and severe policy distortions so far and hence need to be accorded high priority in the state of T­elangana are: land issues, irrigation and power, and education and health.

Land Issues

The primary objective of the first round of land reform legislation in the 1950s and even of the second round in the 1970s was to “secure” land to the tiller. The i­ssue now is to “restore” to the original owner-tillers the land alienated illegally, apart from distribution of land to the landless poor, to the extent feasible. Conserving the available public land and augmenting it further for essential public purposes such as schools, hospitals, house sites for the poor, etc, in the wake of rapid urbanisation is another issue.

On land issues, the recommendations of the Koneru Ranga Rao Committee, which are quite moderate and concerned basically with the more effective implementation of the existing laws (Rao 2007), can be made the basis of reform. These include restoring lands to tribals, checking further alienation of their land by reopening and re-examining orders in favour of non-tribals, and review of large number of cases of illegal occupation by non-tribals. In non-tribal areas these should include restoration of “assigned” land to the original assignees, or, where it is not possible, its resumption by the government for making fresh assignments to the landless poor; and i­ssuing loan eligibility cards to the t­enants to enable them to access institutional credit.

In the recent period, there has been a massive sale of government land to private parties and corporations in Andhra Pradesh. The data on the public land still available in Telangana needs to be brought out and an assessment made regarding the extent to which the government would be in a position to secure land for public purposes.

Irrigation and Power

In the last 50 years, there has been a major shift in the pattern of irrigation in T­elangana making it more costly for the farmers, highly uncertain and unsustainable. There was a steep decline in the area under tank irrigation and a slow increase in irrigation under major and medium irrigation projects, leading to the sharp rise in area irrigated through private wells (TDF 2010).

This process needs to be reversed through a big drive for the repair and renovation of tanks by involving the l­ocal people as well as by stepping up public investment for tapping river w­ater for irrigation, especially from the Godavari, for which there is consider­able potential (Rao 2006). As far back as in the 1960s, the Techno-Economic Survey of Andhra Pradesh conducted by the National Council of Applied Economic Research pointed out that “the scope for large scale exploitation of groundwater is absent in Telangana as the substrata are trap or granite, incap­able of yielding prolific groundwater supplies”, and that “Godavari water can very well be tapped in future to benefit the region” (Rao 2010).

Rejuvenation of tanks, wherever possible, can have an immediate beneficial impact on the livelihoods of the common people without much investment (­Pingle 2011). Although the tapping of Godavari water in Telangana may entail substantial use of power for lifting water from the river, there would, at the same time, be a significant saving of power presently used for well irrigation because of the avail­ability of irrigation water from c­anals (Vedire and Vedire 2008).

Telangana is now deficit in power, whereas Seemandhra has a surplus. This happened despite the existence of huge unexploited coal resources in Telangana suited to power generation. Some power plants in Seemandhra get the coal transported from Telangana, whereas it is far more economical to locate the power plants near the pitheads. The present supply-demand gap for power in Telangana, arising from long-standing neglect and discrimination in the creation of c­apacity in the region, can be met, in the short-run, only through special measures from the centre.

However, given adequate investment by the state government as well as the central government, ample power can be generated in Telangana without much of a time lag. This would generate large-scale employment locally, including in coal mining, power plants and ancillary activities.

Education and Health

There is a growing demand for education in Telangana, particularly at secondary and higher levels, as a means for obtaining better qualiy employment (GOI 2010). This is attributable mainly to low and uncertain incomes from agriculture when compared to the prosperous south coastal Andhra. Surprisingly, this pheno­menon was first noticed way back in the 1960s (Rao 2010) and continues to the present. But the cost of education in Telangana has been rising because of increasing privatisation consequent to inadequate public provision. This is reflected in a rise of annual household consumer expenditure on education as a proportion to total annual household consumer e­xpenditure (TDF 2010).

What is worse, the rise in the cost of education has been accompanied by deterioration in its quality. The dropout rate for students at the primary level is quite high in Telangana. Indeed, the increasing demand for education through private institutions is explained basically by the deterioration in the quality of e­ducation in government schools and colleges (CESS 2008). The major victims of this process of privatisation are students from low income groups, especially the SCs and STs, many of whom cannot afford costly education. It has adversely affected their competitive position in the job market (GOI 2010). This is reinforced by high spatial inequality, as, except in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy districts, the provision of education is inadequate in the rest of Telangana, which continues to lag behind Seemandhra.

The major challenge, therefore, is to ensure affordable and quality education to students at all levels in large parts of Telangana. This requires a significant rise in public expenditure on education. It also calls for greater accountability of school management to the stakeholders through the local elected institutions for the provision of essential services like sanitation, ensuring proper attendance of teachers as well as their periodic training.

Telangana, including Hyderabad, had inherited good health infrastructure from the former Hyderabad state, so that it was ahead of Seemandhra at the time of the formation of Andhra Pradesh. But, as in education, there has been a concentration of facilities in Hyderabad, leaving the rest of Telangana far behind Seemandhra. In terms of hospital beds per lakh population, the gap between Telangana, excluding Hyderabad and Seemandhra has been increasing. In respect of the number of doctors per lakh population too, it falls behind Seemandhra.

As in the case of education, there has been a neglect of health services on the public account, while the private sector gained ascendance. Public expenditure on the health sector whether as a proportion of total public expenditure or of the gross state domestic product has been declining in Andhra Pradesh. Annual per capita government expenditure on healthcare is now well below per capita household expenditure on health services which accounts for a little over 70% of total per capita expenditure on medical care (CESS 2008; GOI 2010).

The growth of the private and corporate sector in healthcare has been encouraged by the government in various ways, and lack of government regulation on minimum standards has worsened the situation, especially for the poorer sections of population. Therefore, one of the major tasks confronting the new state of Telangana will be to substantially step up public expenditure on health services, especially on primary healthcare in rural areas, by making them accountable to the stakeholders. At the same time, there is a need for the regulation of the private corporate sector with a view to ensuring minimum standards and for preventing questionable practices.

Conclusions

A new social framework that is participatory and accountable to stakeholders is a prerequisite for inclusive and sustainable development. Sorting out the pending land issues will provide security for rural livelihoods and the necessary means for raising the incomes of the tribal population – the most marginalised section of rural society.

Reducing excessive dependence on well irrigation by expanding surface irrigation through the renovation of tanks and harnessing river waters will contribute immensely to sustainability, apart from reducing farm costs and uncertainty. The development of power on a priority basis will be indispensable in the new state of Telangana for overcoming inherited shortages, for lifting river waters for irrigation and to facilitate the growth of manufacturing as well as rural industrialisation in general.

The government should shoulder much greater responsibility towards providing primary and secondary education as well as primary healthcare by making them accountable to the stakeholders through the elected local institutions and by regulating the private players in these fields.

Restoring land to the tiller, especially in tribal areas, decentralising development by empowering elected local institutions, and stepping up public investment for essential physical and social infrastructure are the three major challenges in the new Telangana state.

‘Mini capitals’ mooted for Seemandhra to spur growth

Action plan to develop major Tier II and III cities/towns as mini capitals mooted

The Union government has put in place an action plan to develop major Tier II and III cities/towns in Seemandhra region as ‘specialised mini-capitals’. The new capital of residuary Andhra Pradesh may be merely the administrative and political headquarters.

In a bid to contain people’s antipathy towards the Congress in the wake of the bifurcation, the Centre is said to be toying with the idea of decentralised development instead of investing heavily on new capital. The new mantra would be to develop at least eight to ten cities/towns in the region, depending on their importance.

Highly placed sources told The Hindu on Thursday that a blue-print presented to the Centre after the division of the State has strongly pitched for developing a new capital that would function merely as the administrative and political headquarters. “Apart from the construction of the State Secretariat, Legislature and buildings to house government departments, the Centre wants to give a fillip to other places for all round development,” sources said.

The action plan submitted to the Group of Ministers and Centre recommends developing Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Ongole, Tirupati, Chittoor, Kakinada and Anantapur as specialised hubs or mini-capitals. According to information, Visakhapatnam may turn into the fisheries and sea-food hub. To give teeth to its plan, it has been suggested that the headquarters of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) should be shifted to the port city of Visakhapatnam to attract more investments to develop fisheries and sea-food based industries. Kakinada will become the focal point in the development of petrochemical industries. Plans are said to be afoot to set up a corporation exclusively to meet the needs of industries dependent on gas; a corporation on the lines of one run in Gujarat Gas Company Limited. Request has already been made to Centre to revive the IFFCO plant, the foundation for which was laid in Nellore district. Keeping in view the automobile and transport industries’ concentration in and around Vijayawada, it is likely to become the transport hub. Ongole is said to be in the race to become the engineering hub. Tirupati or Chittoor are in the reckoning to turn into agro-based and food-processing hubs in the near future while Anantapur is being tipped as the hardware electronics hub.

Sources said the Centre was looking at a city that has the necessary infrastructure, road and air connectivity besides much needed assured water resources. Visakhapatnam and Rajahmundry are said to be one of the options before the government .

Although no final decision has been taken in identifying the new capital, the Centre appears to be serious about ensuring decentralised development and refrain from repeating its mistake of making Hyderabad a global destination at the cost of neglect of other cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh.

Waiting for bifurcation

President’s Rule in Andhra Pradesh was the only option left before the Union Cabinet after the resignation of Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy, who also quit the Congress protesting against the bifurcation of the State. With most of the members of the Legislative Assembly divided on geographical lines, and party loyalty counting for nothing, no government would have been able to get adequate numbers for a vote of confidence. Moreover, with the election to the Assembly due to be held along with the Lok Sabha polls soon, none of the senior State leaders of the Congress could have been very enthusiastic about the prospect of serving the remainder of the term as an ineffectual Chief Minister. With the model code of conduct bound to become operative with the announcement of the election schedule, a new government would have been left without much leeway for even routine administrative decision-making. Thus, other than bringing together unwilling, disparate elements in a weak, ineffectual government in Andhra Pradesh, the Congress leadership had no option. President’s Rule suggested itself to the Centre, and the Assembly could only be kept in suspended animation.

President’s Rule in Andhra Pradesh opens up another possibility for the Centre and the Congress: holding Assembly elections at a later date, and not simultaneously with the Lok Sabha polls. Unlike in the case of the previous round of state-formation exercises involving Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh, the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh has been left to coincide with the parliamentary and State Assembly elections. Depending on the timing of the presidential assent and the notification of the appointed date for the formation of Telangana, elections will have to be held either to the composite Andhra Pradesh Assembly or to the two assemblies of Seemandhra and Telangana. Elections to two separate assemblies may well take some time to organise, but it does make political sense. The process of first forming a government for Andhra Pradesh in its current form out of the composite Assembly, and later for Telangana and Seemandhra after bifurcating the Assembly, can thus be avoided. However, while President’s Rule can be justified on the ground that there was in Andhra Pradesh a “situation of impasse” as specified in the Bommai judgment, the postponement of the Assembly election will have no such justification. An alternative government might not have been possible from the current Assembly, but this in itself is no argument for postponing the Assembly election. Whether or not Telangana comes into being before the Lok Sabha polls, the Centre and the Election Commission need to take the most democratic course — which is to put a popular government in place without delay.

Supreme Court refuses to stay AP bifurcation

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the March 1 notification to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Seemandhra with effect from June 2.

A three-judge Bench told senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan that it would not interfere with the Centre’s policy decision as granting stay would amount to granting the “final relief” itself.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Bench posted final hearing to August 20 and indicated that if it decided to refer the issue for adjudication by a five-judge Constitution Bench, it would frame questions.

Earlier, Mr. Dhavan pleaded for the status quo on the bifurcation, contending that the government had failed to follow due procedure. Though the Assembly had rejected the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, the Centre’s attitude seemed to be “we don’t care what you [Assembly] do. We will do what we want.”

Irreparable damage

Member of Parliament Arun Kumar explained to the court how the Bill was passed in Parliament after suspending and evicting 17 MPs. He said irreparable damage would be caused if the bifurcation was allowed for political reasons.

When Justice H.L. Dattu observed that an interim order was not warranted, Mr. Dhavan said if the bifurcation was allowed, things would become irreversible. Justice Dattu assured him that if the court found the notification unconstitutional, it would set the clock back.

The Bench, which included Justices M.Y. Eqbal and S.A. Bobde, was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the former Chief Minister, Kiran Kumar Reddy, former Ministers and MLAs and senior advocate P.R. Krishnan, who said the reorganisation law was violative of various Articles of the Constitution.

The bifurcation was “in breach of federalism, one of the basic features of the Constitution. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, was “unfair and unreasonable to the people of the Andhra region”

Also, they said, the Bill was cleared in the Lok Sabha within 23 minutes on February 18, 2014.

In the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on February 20 without carrying out the amendments suggested by members.

A historic opportunity

The future should not be held hostage to the past. Telangana, India’s 29th State, comes into being today after a long and bitter struggle that was marked by much avoidable pain and suffering. But rather than dwell on the issues of the past, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have the opportunity to work out their future as neighbours held together by a sense of shared political and cultural history. True, in sharp contrast to the celebratory mood in Telangana, the people on the other side of the new dividing line remain wary of the immediate and lasting consequences of the bifurcation. However, the occasion of the birth of Telangana must serve as an opportunity to tackle the outstanding issues between the two States within the framework provided by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Hyderabad will remain a joint capital for ten years, a period long enough to allow for reinvestment and resettlement. Allocation of employees, management of water resources and sharing of power are contentious subjects, but these can be settled through the available mechanisms. As K. Chandrasekhar Rao takes charge as Chief Minister of the new State, and N. Chandrababu Naidu as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, the challenges might seem overwhelming. But if they keep the long-term interests of their people in mind, and not their own short-term political calculations, many of the seemingly insurmountable difficulties could disappear. The two sides might have taken hardline positions during their campaign and immediately after the election, but once in power they will hopefully find some meeting ground.

Andhra Pradesh was one State where the Lok Sabha election was dominated by a ‘local’ issue: the bifurcation of the State. Political parties that until the previous general election could boast of support across the regions found themselves relegated to one or the other of the two regions — Telangana and Seemandhra. Parties were defined by their stand on the bifurcation issue, and invariably this would have an impact on how the Telangana Rashtra Samithi and the Telugu Desam Party will formulate their policies on subjects that have relevance to any Telangana-Andhra Pradesh dispute. But not more than one election can be won on the basis of the bifurcation issue, and both parties must realise the importance of addressing the larger livelihood and security concerns of the people. There is little political purchase to be had in raising disputes between the two States as emotive issues that brook no compromise. Both Mr. Rao and Mr. Naidu will serve their States well if they adopt, as suggested by Governor E.S.L. Narasimhan, a consultative process in dispute resolution. The time for political rhetoric is now past.

Panel on new capital to submit report before August-end deadline

The Sivaramakrishnan Committee on location of administrative capital for Andhra Pradesh has made it clear that it would submit its report much before the deadline of August 31 and that the final choice was the prerogative of the State Government.

The Committee chairman, K. C. Sivaramakrishnan, while interacting with media persons here on Saturday, also indicated that the panel favoured development of the new capital close to an existing city rather than a greenfield one, both in view of its urgent necessity and the past experience gained from string of steel plant cities, Chandigarh, Gandhinagar and even new Raipur. “Andhra Pradesh cannot wait for 20 to 30 years that is required for development of a capital in a totally new place”.

The Committee met Governor E. S. L. Narasimhan and the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, N. Chandrababu Naidu, earlier in the day. To a specific question about Mr. Naidu’s preference for Vijayawada-Guntur stretch, the chairman said he did not bring it out in the meeting. But Mr. Naidu was not only aware of the challenges of locating and building the capital but had the vision, considering his past experience.

Mr. Sivaramakrishnan and other members, Aramor Ravi, K. T. Ravindran and Rathin Roy said they were not in favour of one super capital that would merely serve as a political hub. It may not be able to solve all the problems going by the experience of Indian cities.

Instead it would be better to develop a string of cities that could be business, investment and industrial hubs. “The number and size of such hubs could be decided at the political level”.

They would not hazard a guess on the extent of land or financial resources required as it depended on the kind of capital the State Government wanted.

Responding to a question, they said the Centre would indeed provide assistance for the development of the capital and it was specifically mentioned in the AP Reorganisation Act.

The Committee’s mandate was not to suggest a particular location but to explore the options , they said.

Telangana rejects MHA idea to form joint force for Hyderabad

The Telangana government has dismissed the suggestions of the Home Ministry to form a joint force comprising police of the new state and residuary Andhra Pradesh to control the law and order in Hyderabad and set up a special cell to deal with hate crimes there.

The K. Chandrasekhar Rao government, which is at loggerheads with the Centre over Polavaram Bill, has sent a missive to the Home Ministry rejecting its proposal to set up the joint force comprising policemen from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for maintenance of law and order in Hyderabad and Cyberabad.

“The common capital area is an integral part of Telangana state. There cannot be any joint force in the common capital area as law and order is a state subject and the police officers of another state cannot have any jurisdiction here,” Principal Secretary (General Administration Department) of the Telangana government, Ajay Mishra conveyed to the Home Ministry in a communication.

Following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has been made the joint capital of the two states for 10 years and their Governor has been entrusted with the responsibility of maintenance of law and order in Hyderabad.

On June 4, the Home Ministry sought the opinion of the Telangana government on the proposal for amendment of the Business Transaction Rules of Telangana.

Opposing the move, TRS leader in Lok Sabha Jithender Reddy told PTI that they have already raised the issue with Home Minister Rajnath Singh who promised to review it.

He said it will be “gross injustice” to people of Telangana if such overwhelming power is given to the Governor.

“We will oppose it tooth and nail and cannot allow this to happen,” he said.

The Telangana government has also rejected the Ministry’s proposal to set up a special cell headed by an officer not below the rank of IGP in both the Commissionerates and with a senior officer in the office of Ranga Reddy district to deal with hate crimes and crimes related to extortion or any other specified crime and ensure speedy trial.

“An officer will be designated in the office of the Director General of Police to deal with issues mentioned,” the Telangana government letter said.

There have been reports of spurt of alleged hate crimes and extortion calls in Hyderabad and its adjoining areas following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. The reports suggested that most of the victims had roots in Seemandhra region.

The Centre has proposed that police force of Hyderabad and Cyberabad Commissionerates shall be a joint entity comprising elements from Andhra and Telangana on fair share basis in supervisory posts like Deputy Commissioners, Additional Commissioners and Commissioners.

Reddy claimed there has not been even single incident of assault on people from Seemandhra region.

According to the proposed amendment, the Governor shall have the power to call for any record or information or decision of the Council of Ministers or any authority relating to the responsibilities envisaged under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014.

It also said the Commissioners of Police and Superintendent of Police of Ranga Reddy district shall furnish periodical reports of law and order to the Governor in addition to special reports on all grave crimes in the common capital area.

However, the Telangana government made it clear that the state Government will only furnish periodical reports on law and order to the Governor through Council of Ministers.

The Home Ministry proposed that for matters falling under law and order, internal security and security of vital installations, as well as the two Police Commissionerates currently operating in Hyderabad and Cyberabad and Commissionerates, and for Ranga Reddy district, the Home Secretary of Telangana shall brief the Governor as well as on those issues that have special significance.

The Governor may convey his views which shall be placed before the appropriate authority. Governor’s advice shall prevail.

Rejecting the proposed amendment, the Telangana government said it will provide required reports to Governor only through the Council of Ministers.

The Centre proposed that in case of exigencies, the Governor can call for a report or assessment from the Telangana government upon which he can ask the state government specifically for reallocation of the staff on a temporary basis in case of any contingency.

“State Government does not agree with this. Reallocation of the staff has to be done in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Reorganisation Act,” the state government conveyed.

The Home Ministry has suggested that the management and allocation of buildings to all the departments of both the successor states shall be decided by the governor on the recommendations of the committee of senior officers constituted for the purpose keeping in view the requirement and availability of accommodation and the decision of the governor shall be final.

The Telangana government rebutted it and said according to rules, the governor has to take decision in consultation with the Council of Ministers of Telangana and the Council of Ministers cannot be substituted by a Committee of Officers.

The Centre proposed that to ensure the safety of property of the common capital of Hyderabad, the collectors of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy districts as well as the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation shall set up grievance cells for the redressal of grievances and affected parties shall have the right to represent themselves.

Besides, the governor can issue necessary directions to the officials of the Telangana government for the protection of the property rights of the aggrieved.

However, the Telangana government said the officer designated in DGP office will deal with this function.

“The state government is of the view that as per the basic principle as given in article 163 of the Constitution, which is also reiterated in the wording of Section 8(3) of A.P. Reorganisation Act, the governor has to function with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The basic Transaction Rules proposed vide the reference given above do not conform to these basic principles,” the state government communication to the Home Ministry said.

Telangana is facing a day-long bandh on Saturday called in protest against the passage in Lok Sabha of a Bill to transfer some villages of the newly-created state to Andhra Pradesh to aid the construction of the Polavaram project.