[Appeared in Indian Express on 8th October, 2013; coauthored with Vinod Kumar]
Contrary to the prevailing opinion, in this country, new state formation has never been smooth. Nor were the procedures exactly similar. Each state formation was unique and had followed a different sequence of steps. The only thing common to all the state formations so far in Independent India has been the rigid applicability of Article 3 in its truest sense, where Parliament is given the supreme authority to carve out states irrespective of the opinion of the involved State Assemblies.
While the NDA followed a convenient procedure in the creation of
Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand in 2000, where the state assemblies
initiated the demand for separation, such a procedure is neither legally
mandated nor is constitutionally prescribed and deviates from most other prior
state formations.
Even the original reason for carving out states is different for each
state. While some states in India were formed on the basis of recommendations
by the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), most others have not been dealt
with by the SRC. And in certain cases, states were formed though SRC made
explicit negative recommendations, like in case of Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Even the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956 did not follow the recommendations
of SRC.
And contrary to what Seemandhras believe, Indira Gandhi was not an
apostle of preservation of existing states. In fact, history attests that she
was a big supporter of creation of new states. No other Prime Minister of
this country has carved as many states as Indira Gandhi. She single-handedly
led to the creation of many new states--Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura. Back then, there was a strong case for creation
of Telangana when the Telangana Praja Samiti (TPS) won 10 Lok Sabha seats in
1971 elections in spite of the popularity wave that Indira Gandhi was riding on
at that time.
Leaders of those times confide that Indira Gandhi was almost ready to
divide Andhra Pradesh as well in 1972, which actually resonates with her
proclivity towards creating new states with utmost ease. Why she opposed the
division of Andhra Pradesh, as a special case, seems to have completely
different reasons. The then principal secretary of Indira Gandhi PN Haskar made
her aware of a pending petition with the United Nations filed by last Nizam
Osman Ali Khan against forceful annexation of Hyderabad State by the Indian
armed forces.
Haskar advised Indira Gandhi not to broach the bifurcation of Andhra
Pradesh while the case was still pending. It is to be noted that Indira Gandhi
went about creating many states following different sets of steps for each
state. When Chief Minister Ram Kishan of Punjab openly opposed and criticized
the CWC resolution of March 9, 1966, to bifurcate the state, Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi suspended proviso of Article 3 of referring the bill to the State
Assembly by imposing President’s rule on July 5, 1966, keeping the State
Assembly in suspended animation to go ahead with the formation of Punjab Suba
and Haryana Prant, using Parliament’s prerogative in carving internal
boundaries of the country.
The President of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, stated that there
would be no reference of the Reorganization Bill to the State Legislature. The
bill was debated at length and passed by the Lok Sabha on August 31, 1966, and
by the Rajya Sabha on September 3, 1966. The President’s Rule was revoked on
November 1, 1966, when Punjab was bifurcated. This decision to divide the state
while under President’s Rule was later upheld in 1970 by the Delhi High Court,
thereby establishing the supreme power of Parliament in the creation of new
states.
Punjab, like Andhra Pradesh, was covered by Article 371. The passage
of bill for reorganization of Punjab automatically removed Punjab from this
special provision of Article 371, which will be now applicable during formation
of Telangana.
The current insubordination and overt defiance of Andhra Pradesh CM N
Kiran Kumar Reddy is uncannily similar to the belligerent stance taken by the
Chief Minister of Punjab Ram Kishan in 1966. It would be wise if the current
Seemandhra leadership stops its undemocratic and coercive activities aimed at
stalling the formation of Telangana. They should realize that bifurcation
of Andhra Pradesh is inevitable, and therefore, there is a need to cooperate
with people of Telangana in separation. Seemandhra leaders should instead focus
their energies towards safeguarding the interests of Seemandhra at this
critical hour.
If the current belligerence and willful disobedience of Kiran Kumar
Reddy is continued, wherein he uses cricket symbolism that “it is not over till
the last ball is bowled”, expressing his desire to fight till the end, there is
a very strong case for imposing President’s Rule to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh by
keeping the State Assembly in suspended animation, thereby obviating the need
to refer the bill to State Assembly.
Sonia Gandhi may now have to do what Indira Gandhi did in 1966. We
sincerely hope we don’t have to do it that way. Seemandhras can debate their
perceived problems and issues in the State Assembly while discussing the draft
bill. We need to remember that we can choose our friends but not our neighbors.
We hope that we will be friendly neighbors who are going to solve all the
issues that may arise in future with maturity and responsibility.
No. Presidents rule needs to be imposed to make hyderabad a union territory. And that is where it is leading to. There will be telangana with its capital. So will there be a Seema Andhra with its capital and there will be Hyderabad as UT. I am stunned how you intelligent people are missing this.
ReplyDeleteThis whole drama is for that. Super economic zones is the long term plan of the centre. Separate Hyderabad and let it be the first example and then over the years show that example and then separate Mumbai, Bangalore, etc.
Making Hyderabad a Union Territory has a remote possibility. Right now it is not even on the cards for discussion.
DeleteAny intelligent person would not actually support a move towards making Hyderabad a Union Territory. Those who support do not understand what it means to be a UT.
There are enough precedents to suggest that those who live in UT do not want to remain in UT but to make it a state eventually. Even the people of Chandigarh bemoan their current plight. Though it is a planned city in India it does not compete with Bangalore, Pune or Hyderbad, and remains stagnant.
All other UTs eventually became a state for the obvious reason that nobody wants to live under a Governor ruled by the President.
That is the reason why MIM and other local MLAs of Hyderabad are staunchly opposed to creating UT out of Hyderabad.
Super economic zones directly under President's Rule is a pipe dream - even New Delhi had to be eventually converted into a state.
The trend in this country is to make a city or region democratic through elected representatives, not the other way around.
Separate state status like pondicherry maybe. Looks like the CONgress is conning the telanganas by forcing a presidents rule and dividing the state into three parts. And also looks like the BJP is also warming upto such an idea. For The MIM that would be a dream come true.
DeleteFantasy.
DeleteThat's what entire Samaikyandhra Movement is based on - imaginary fears and fantastical dreams. Not based in reality.
**That's what entire Samaikyandhra Movement is based on - imaginary fears**
DeleteYes I agree to this statement to large extent. One such fear is that both the Godavari districts will become barren if Telangana is given away. But the Godavari districs get Godavari water only after the Sabari, Kinnerasani, Taliperu rivers all merge into Godavari at Khammam. Any reservoir/dam constructed ahead of Khammam will not effect the Godavari districts. And above that, Polavaram was given national recognition.
**That is the reason why MIM and other local MLAs of Hyderabad are staunchly opposed to creating UT out of Hyderabad**
Deletehaha.. Are you joking?? you seriously think MIM is opposing UT option because of your said reasons?
MIM is opposing because apart from Hyderabad, MIM has no foothold. If it is made UT, they will loose their identity forever.
Personally, I love Hyderabad with RR district to be a separate state(Just like Delhi). But Telangana without Hyderabad is of no use and it will be injustice to Telangana. Saying that, I even see it as a boon to Telanagana in disguise as at least then, leaders think beyond Hyderabad.
But in my opinion, give away Telanagana with Hyderabad or don't divide at all. Because the UT, Hyderabad another state options will compel Center to sponsor another Capital in Telangana which will be a burden.
you seriously think MIM is opposing UT option because of your said reasons?
DeleteMIM is opposing because apart from Hyderabad, MIM has no foothold. If it is made UT, they will loose their identity forever.
You are a very smart person!
@Phaniraj:
DeletePolavaram is a pipedream. The so called national project status even if given does not give any right to bypass any process. All it means the project will be funded by the center if and when all processes are completed.
It is evil to punish HYD people by imposing UT on them by other region people.
ReplyDeleteI agree. UT is a TERRIBLE idea. It will create a lot more vested interests that are not already in Hyderabad as of now.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the government will not declare President's Rule. It is the Congress' own government. Opposition will take them to the cleaners for declaring President's rule in their own state. Amounts to admission that they screwed up.
So Sujai has eschewed (temporarily?) the fascist strategy. Deliberately pumping hot air to partisan sentiments to create a sense of indignation amongst T people and instigate a rash reaction by SA people so that the differences crystallise and separation justifies itself. As much as I condemn it, cannot help but admit it is a brilliant, rascally strategy :-)
Personally, I do not endorse the idea to impose President's Rule in Andhra Pradesh to carve out Telangana. It will set a wrong precedent.
DeleteThe last sentence captures my stance:
"We sincerely hope we don’t have to do it that way. Seemandhras can debate their perceived problems and issues in the State Assembly while discussing the draft bill. We need to remember that we can choose our friends but not our neighbors. We hope that we will be friendly neighbors who are going to solve all the issues that may arise in future with maturity and responsibility."
Sujai... That is what I was saying.. You need to console our neighbors if they feel they are being cheated and try to give them a chance to discuss their grievances. But many people like TRS leaders, Kodandaram, Ponnam Prabhakar, and few other T-Congress leaders are adding salt to injury and these comments are provoking Seemandhra to agitate more. See how Jaipal Reddy talks see how Jana Reddy talks. They are so convincing. I suggest high command to let people like these to hold talks with Seemandhra and try to convince them. But in contrast, to gain political mileage people like Ponnam, Madhuyashki, KTR, KCR, Harish rao, Kodandaram are giving hate speeches.
DeleteIf Akbar Owaisi was arrested for giving hate speech on religious lines, even KCR, KTR should be arrested for giving hate speeches on regional ground.
Phaniraj:
DeleteYou need to console our neighbors if they feel they are being cheated and try to give them a chance to discuss their grievances.
Why?
Did the same neighbors do anything to console us when we were agitating for the last four years? Did they try to give us a chance to discuss our grievances for the last thirteen years?
Instead of discussing our concerns and aspirations, they rubbished them, called them ‘lies’, and wrote books to describe as ‘lies’, and called them ‘lies’ propagated by KCR and his family. They refused to concede or even admit that our concerns were genuine.
So, why should ‘consolation’ be one-way street?
But many people like TRS leaders, Kodandaram, Ponnam Prabhakar, and few other T-Congress leaders are adding salt to injury and these comments are provoking Seemandhra to agitate more.
Like all Seemandhras, you want to see only what you want to see. Prof Kodandaram has said many a times that TJAC is ready to discuss the concerns and issues of Seemandhras. Their overtures were rebuffed.
That’s because Seemandhras do not want their issues addressed – they just want to grab Hyderabad in the guise of their farcical movement called Samaikyandhra.
Sujai, in Mahabharata Krishna did not go to Hastinapuri as an emissary of peace. He did not tell Duryodhana " look you are a prince and so are they. Your contention is as valid as theirs So sit with them at the same table and sort it out. If not war is always an option". Instead he went and warned Kauravas on the imminent disaster of going into a war with Pandavas. Krishna wanted the war. There was discussion in his agenda
Deletehttp://newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Kiran-ready-to-break-bad-in-final-episode/2013/10/22/article1848793.ece
ReplyDeleteSources said he’s thinking of tendering his resignation amid “high drama” after giving a lengthy speech, tearing into the Centre’s T-decision, the moment the Assembly session begins to debate the T-resolution sometime in November last week.
Sujai, I would like to correct your statement on SRC recommendations on AP formation. 1st SRC didn't totally oppose merger of Telangana and Andhra formation if you read it properly. In fact AP is not the only state created on that day, Karnataka and kerala are also formed on 1st Nov 1956 bgy merging different areas. HYD assembly passed the merger. Around 70 MLA's out of 96 MLA's from TG supported merger. Infact Vidarbha was the one which was forcefully merged. Central provinces in 1938 passed a resolution for creation of Vidarbha but nehru merged it MH where as no such resolution was passed by HYD for creation of TG state. T supporters are intepreting as per their convinience. Agreed TG supported telangana in 1971 when they gave verdict of 11 MP seats out of 14 for TPS. I doubt if Indira gandhi didn't divide AP in 1972 for the petition filed by Nizam. I never read this anywhere, Nizam filed petition in 1948 and was it hanging in UN for 24 years? anyway state creation is a internal re-org of our map and nothing to do with some petition in UN
ReplyDeleteComing to fears of Seemandhras, many of them are imaginary but I see T supporters raising emotions for unnecessary stuff ex: see the link
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/bhel-defers-interviews-political-pressure-alleged/article5360475.ece
Why should T supporters interfere in the recruitment of a Central Govt organisation? They can protest only if there is a irregularity in recuritment like recommendations, prejudice, nepotism, bribery.Central Govt and private sector are open to people across india. Many people from T are working in many parts of India (and rest of world) This is the exact fear of rest of AP. anyway Its stupid to oppose TG formation now, politicians should work to get a good deal for rest of AP and work for welfare of people in both states. there are many issues to work on
Yeah. Once Seemandhra agrees in principle to the formation of T, it would turn into an equal battle. And I presume Andhra would win that battle by a mile. Bhadrachalam would go to Andhra. And Andhra govt. would make sure, it gets a lion's share of funds from the center.
ReplyDeleteI am only worried about Telangana. Not sure how TRS would be effective in, for the first time, ruling its people rather than instigating/mobilizing them. Should wait and see.
Sujai, I would like to correct my statement a bit. I read in todays ToI paper on this. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Book-counters-Kiran-Reddys-claim-says-Indira-favoured-granting-Telangana-in-1969/articleshow/26284822.cms?
ReplyDeleteI feel the UN petition has nothing to do with our state reorg as AP divided or undivided is part of india and that dispute of HYD should have nothing to do with it. creation of a state internally as per our constitution power rests with parliament. Dispute had been there if TG is created or not created
I suspect the timing of release of these books. similarly a letter was released last year saying 1st CM of HYD state B.Ramakrishna rao supported TG formation. They are released to get some support for TG,
No political party in india has principles on re-organisation of states. Rajaji, Nehru, patel were personally against lingusitic states but they agreed later. only ambedkar had a opinion on how states be organised. Ambedkar supported 1-state, 1-language policy and was supporter of lingusitic states and addressing various identities. If AP is united or divided it doesn't effect the PM chair of Nehru or Indira. Indira doesn't have anything against AP united or division, only political survival matters.
AP is a strong congress bastian from 1947 in south (TN had Dravidian parties, kerala under communist) and even though congress lost base in north (UP) in 1967 when charansingh formed the Govt. She doesn't want another non-congress govt in another state and managed to get chennareddy TPS merged to congress and congress ruled ap continuously till 1983
Now congress released if TG is created they can come to power atleast in TG and anyway if AP is united they can't come to power for 3rd time. similaryl BJP, CPI are supporting as they see some growth potential in TG as they dont have base in seemandhra. If principles are reason they should have created in 2009 or they should declare a policy of re-org of states. National parties like Cong, BJP atleast should have a consistent policy on states re-org. BJP says its supports smaller states but whats their definition of a smaller state? How they want the Internal Map of india to look like. No one has any policy. IF we go by peoples agitation then will they support Gorkha or bodoland where people have agitated? They dont see any benefit as they are not rich states and also they dont have required MP seats :-)