Telangana State Issue 28 September 2014 at 12:09 AM TELANGANA STATE ISSUE By Dr. Subhash Chandra Reddy and Dr.Vijaya Kesari 8/24/2013, LOS ANGELES Respected Mr Anna Hazare, This is to appeal to you to not oppose the formation of Telangana State but to support it wholeheartedly because this is the culmination of a genuine People’s democratic Movement sustained continuously over the past Half-A-Century. It is a Popular Peoples Movement against Corruption, Injustice, Looting, and Violent Oppression by a Corrupt, Nepotistic, and Undemocratic Governments. This is a fight for survival, for democratic rights of self determination, and for the right to guide their own destiny. The Constitution of India bestowed this right to form their own State through Articles 2 and 3. Telangana State is NOT a new creation. It is just a DEMERGER from Andhra State which was anyway a forced merger. Telangana State is NOT a Small State. It will be 12th largest State in area and 10th largest in population. It is a medium size State. Telangana State is financially well to do and a progressive State. Telangana State represents an Integrated Society of the nation in diversity of languages, religions, ethnicities. Telangana People lived harmoniously with Marathas, Kannadigas, Malayalees, Tamils, Punjabis, and Bengalis over centuries. They never had expressed animosity towards any group. Telangana State will have 35 Crore Populations over an area of 114,000 sq Km. The People of Telangana are pained to hear your opposition to their cherished dream for self determination and right to guide their own Destiny. Please understand and support Telangana People. The Founding Fathers of Indias Constitution anticipated changes in the Territorial boundaries of existing States for administrative reasons as well as by popular demands of citizens, and the formation of more and new States by reorganization and accession. What is more startling and revolutionary about their Thinking, Foresight, and Wisdom is that they recognized the inherent Right of the citizens of various States of India for Self-Determination to form their own areas into a separate State majorly because of their dissatisfaction, disenchantment, disaffection, feeling of discrimination in their present State, and to fulfill their cherished desire to chart their own future and development These are the Statements made by the Founding Fathers of India who worked hard and with great Integrity for two years, 1948-1950, in the Constitutional Assembly to write the Constitution of India. Please note what these Founding Fathers said about the fundamental right of the People to form a State of their own whether by separating regions from existing State or by combining regions from two or more States. East Punjab The first point which I would like to submit is that every part of India should be given this facility, that, should it decide to secede from one part and to accede to another, then there should be no impediment in its way Since the war we have been hearing that everyone has got the right of self-determination…. If the people of an area want separation, then the right of self-determination should be given to them…. I would like the Congress Government to respect the wishes of the areas, which desire to separate from any province and that no hurdles are placed in their way; on the other hand, all legal aid should be given for the formation of a new province. Parliament, and not the President, should have the right to determine the matter after taking into account the opinion of the people of the area concerned and of the vote of the provincial legislature. It is therefore necessary that every Member of the parliament should have the right to give notice of such a bill. Views of the provincial legislature may be taken but the changes should be effected in accordance with the wishes of the people of the area, who want separation. If this is not done then the principle of self-determination would be nowhere. We used to hear that after the attainment of Swaraj the right of self-determination would be given to all…. Views of the legislatures may be invited, and may be taken into consideration; but the determining factor should be the vote of the people of the area, which wants to separate. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, if one were to compare the amended proviso with the original proviso as it was set out in the Draft Constitution, the Members will see that the new amendment introduces two changes. One is this: in the original draft the power to introduce the Bill was given exclusively to the Government of India. ….this was a somewhat sever and unnecessary curtailment of the right of the members of Parliament…. Consequently we deleted this provision giving the power exclusively to the Government of India, and gave it to the President and stated that any such Bill whether it was brought by the Government of India or by any private Member should have the recommendation of the President. That is one change. The second change is this:…. all that is necessary is consultation. Consent is not required. All that the President is called upon to do is to be satisfied, before making the recommendation, that their wishes have been consulted. The Honourable Shri K. Santanam: madrasTherefore, by Mr. Shahs amendment instead of democracy we will have absolute autocracy of the majority in every province and State. That is certainly not what professor Shah wants. But, unfortunately, in his enthusiasm for what he calls the principle, he has tabled an amendment which altogether defeats his object. I therefore suggest that the amendment shall be rejected and the proposition moved by Dr.Ambedkar should be accepted. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General): Mr. Vice-President, .All that I am asking for is that the consent of the States should not be necessary for a re-organisation of their territories. Consultation with them should be quite enough. … I do not see, why the previous consent of the States should be required in connection with Article 3and more than it is required in connection with matters dealt with in Articles 226, 227 and 294. Gwalior Mr. Vice-President, …. there is no question of taking the consent of the States…. I think, mere consultation would be sufficient in the matter of the States also as it is in connection with the Provinces…. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this is a fundamental matter, ..The only condition is this, namely, that the President after he receives notice of such a motion from any Member will try to take the opinion of the area concerned and then, of course after consulting his Ministry, give his recommendation for moving the Bill…. if the President feels that the people of an area - the majority of them - are of the opinion that they would be happier if they go to some other State or Province, he would advise the Prime Minister, and probably the Prime Minister also will agree with him that the motion should be allowed and that Parliament should be allowed to discuss the question. I think that gives full liberty and opportunity to every area which desires a change of boundaries. East Punjab …I am afraid the amendment would reduce the chance of success of any community which is in majority in any area but happens to be in minority in that State and I am afraid it would also reduce the importance of their demand and narrow the opportunity of their having a say in the matter….The provision as it stands in the draft lays down that if the majority of the people in any area demand that their area be joined to any other State or to a new State, their demand can be taken into consideration… I am afraid their demand would lose some of its weight, and particularly this would be the case of the people of such areas as have no leader of their own, no press of their own and no other means to make their voice heard. …Though the people of this area wanted that their region should be jointed to Delhi or Haryana yet nothing happened as they had no leader of their own nor any Press of their own. The loyalty of those people of U. P. who had made this demand, was doubted and their voice was stifled to an extent beyond description. A ban was laid on them by the Provincial Congress Committee not to make such a demand, and they were asked not to raise any voice for any alteration in the boundaries of the province. …. …I want that it should be changed so as to include without any doubt the provision that when the Centre consults the provincial legislature the opinion of the majority of the representatives of the territory, which wants to separate itself and join another province, should also be on record and that their recorded opinion should appear before the Central Assembly so that it may know what that particular territory desires.] Berar …. I am inclined to agree, therefore, with Pandit Kunzrus argument …we should not go beyond obtaining the views of the rulers of the States or the legislatures of the States, whatever the case may be. As you read through these Members forceful and wise arguments on the issue of a region separating from a State, you cannot but appreciate how deeply they analyzed and how carefully they articulated the concerns and rights of their citizens with regard to their desire for self-determination in forming a State of their own. They even discussed how a minority within a State could be oppressed and subjugated by the majority of the state. And how the weaker and less powerful regions could be made helpless and deprived of their rightful demand to form a separate State. And in 1955, B.R. Ambedkar in his book THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES, Part III, summarized his thoughts on forming linguistic States as follows: (3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the formula of one language, one State. (4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking one language should be brought under one Government irrespective of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the people speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the agitation for a united Maharashtra with Bombay. This is an absurd formula and has no precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking one language may be cut up into many States as is done in other parts of the world. To put it simply, B.R. Ambedkar reiterated that there can be multiple states of one language. He admonished that it is absurd to force one state per language. Prof. K. T. Shah: Lest I should be misunderstood, I would at once add that I am certainly not in love with the present position, or the continuance of the alignment of the provinces and States as they stand today. They need to be altered, they must be altered. But they must be altered only as and how the people primarily affected desire them to be altered, and not in accordance with the preconception, the notion, of such adjustment that those at the Centre may have, even if some of those at the Centre are the representatives of the people concerned. I make it imperative, therefore, that the first proposition, the initiation of the movement either to integrate or to separate, either to readjust the boundaries or to bring about any new form of configuration, must commence with the people themselves. I admit that in democracy majority rule should prevail. But the majority has not the monopoly of being always right and still less to be always just. Brief history: Telangana existed as The Hyderabad State for centuries. Certain marathi and Kannada speaking districts were also part of the Hyderabad State. After India’s independence, Hyderabad State acceded to Indian union and prevailed as a State within the Indian union until 1956. In 1953, the Telugu speaking districts of Madras State were separated to form the State of Andhra (not Andhra Pradesh). The State Reorganization Committee, headed by Justice Fazal Ali, after studying both The Hyderabad State and the Andhra State, recommended that it is best to leave Hyderabad State alone and not merge with Andhra state for many obvious reasons including the most important one, the People of Telangana did not want to merge but stay separate as Hyderabad State. Hyderabad State had surplus budgets year after year. Although the SRC recommended against merger, the Congress Party and the Central Government decided to forcefully merge Telangana (Hyderabad State) with Andhra in 1956. Late Pandit Nehru was skeptical of the merger and assured the people of Telangana that they can “divorce” if it didn’t work out. As a pre condition to merger, the Telangana and Andhra leaders co-signed The Gentlemen ‘s Agreement which gave special protection to Telangana safeguarding their educational, employment, and financial well being. A Telangana Regional Committee was created with Constitutional Powers to execute Budget allocations for Telangana. Also, it was guaranteed that the positions of Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister were to be alternately shared between Telangana and Andhra. None of these Agreements were honored after the merger. Jobs, promotions, and educational opportunities that were rightfully due to people of Telangana were systematically siphoned off by the people from Andhra through Nepotism. Budget allocations made to Telangana were never expended as promised. Although Godavari and Krishna Rivers flow from Telangana (over 70% of catchment area), the waters were illegally diverted for the benefit of Andhra farmers denying Telangana farmers their due share. All these contributed to the decline of Telangana’s economy and progress and development. In 1968-69, the Telangana Agitation demanded for separation or demerger from Andhra. Many hundreds were shot dead by the Police and the genuine democratic movement was forcefully suppressed. Then in 1973 the Telangana People were again duped by the offer of Six Point Plan as even better than the Gentlemen ‘s Agreement and resulted in the revocation of Telangana Regional Committee and the Mulki Rule protections. The Andhra political establishment redoubled their plans to loot the people of Telangana and started violating all the provisions of the Six point Formula. The Girglani Commission, appointed to study the violations, documented how the AP government systematically robbed Telangana employees of their jobs and promotions and recommended steps to correct the situation in 2006 only to violate even more aggressively. The current Telangana Movement was restarted in 2001 and has been continuously fought to win the constitutionally guaranteed right for self-determination (to form their own State) and to guide their own Destiny. Congress Party and the Central government promised to form Telangana State in 2001 and even made it a part of the Common Minimum Point Program but failed to keep its promise. This time the government used excessive police force to put down the Movement violently but could not dampen the spirit of the people of Telangana. Finally, in December 2009, the Central government announced that the process to form Telangana State with Hyderabad as its capital has begun. Once again, the central government deceived Telangana People and reneged on its promise. The People continued their Movement and finally, the Congress party, the UPA-II and the Central government declared that Telangana State with Hyderabad as its capital on July 30, 2013. This decision was arrived at after ALL the POLITICAL PARTIES in Andhra Pradesh signed official documents that they support Telangana State formation. But, the very next day after the announcement to form Telangana State, these political opportunists went back on their word and overnight created a violent ruckus in Andhra area.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 16:35:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015