After his statements of 9th December, 23rd December and 5th January, our Honorable Home Minister made yet another statement on 28th January today. His performance in last two months has been quite impressive – graduating from a dream budget-presenting Finance Minister to a State(ment)sman.
However, unlike his previous statements, which sent clear signals, today’s one is brilliant in that it is being interpreted in hundred different ways by hundred different men, mostly of Congress. Is it not a feat that a mere couple of sentences are packed with so many meanings?
After watching all the channels, I have discovered that none has correctly understood the portent of Mr.Chidambaram’s statement. It is left to me to bring the actual meaning of his statement out.
People are all wondering what the Committee is about. What will be its Agenda. No more suspense. It is about bifurcation.
If you think the Committee is for bifurcation of the State, go and have your head examined. It is about bifurcating the Home Ministry about which he threw a few hints earlier. Internal Security will be separated and he will handle that. All other subjects like the hot potato called Telangana can be handled by someone else.
See how brilliant a solution to a vexing problem.
…ponder
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Shape of things to come?
Proponents of seperation argue that Fazal Ali Commission report clearly pointed to the disparity between the Andhra and Hyderabad states in respect of their respective revenue status. The newly formed Andhra state had low per capita income and the revenue position was also not good whereas Hyderabad state had comfortable revenue position.
But they are silent about this comfortable position of Hyderabad being attributed by the Commission to the sound revenue system and due to sale of liquor.
It is also oft repeated that in comparison to the Andhra state the Government employees of Hyderabad had much better salaries.
It must be borne in mind that since Congress had already wielded power in the Composite Madras Presidency during British rule it introduced prohibition and practically there was no revenue from Abkari. Regarding sound revenue system, one has only to recall the repressive Nizam regime comprising of cruel local lords extracting revenue though inhuman methods from a hapless peasantry. The Commission itself reports that except for the Hyderabad urban area, rest of the Hyderabad was in pitiable state. Despite their other shortcomings the areas directly ruled by British had comparatively a very liberal dispensation.
If we surmise that in the State of Hyderabad during Nizam’s rule and later after the Police action, there existed a system which thrived on repressive revenue collection and liquor consumption by a poverty ridden population and that the Public servants fattened themselves from this ‘comfortable revenue’ position, are we wrong? Was this not the reason for the struggle especially by Communists and peasants against the rulers?
Is this an incentive and inducement shown to the Government employees to support the separate movement?
…ponder
But they are silent about this comfortable position of Hyderabad being attributed by the Commission to the sound revenue system and due to sale of liquor.
It is also oft repeated that in comparison to the Andhra state the Government employees of Hyderabad had much better salaries.
It must be borne in mind that since Congress had already wielded power in the Composite Madras Presidency during British rule it introduced prohibition and practically there was no revenue from Abkari. Regarding sound revenue system, one has only to recall the repressive Nizam regime comprising of cruel local lords extracting revenue though inhuman methods from a hapless peasantry. The Commission itself reports that except for the Hyderabad urban area, rest of the Hyderabad was in pitiable state. Despite their other shortcomings the areas directly ruled by British had comparatively a very liberal dispensation.
If we surmise that in the State of Hyderabad during Nizam’s rule and later after the Police action, there existed a system which thrived on repressive revenue collection and liquor consumption by a poverty ridden population and that the Public servants fattened themselves from this ‘comfortable revenue’ position, are we wrong? Was this not the reason for the struggle especially by Communists and peasants against the rulers?
Is this an incentive and inducement shown to the Government employees to support the separate movement?
…ponder
Monday, January 4, 2010
Contrast between 1972 and 2009
One more blog in the context of the turmoil in Andhra Pradesh. This is to elicit clarification on certain doubts. I will be grateful if any knowledgeable person throws some light.
In 1969 we had a separate Telengana movement. Nothing came out of it except somebody became the Chief Minister.
In 1972 we had a bigger movement for separate Andhra. I remember north and south remained cut off for over a month. Till today’s turmoil, that was the strongest movement and yet no separation took place.
By contrasting of the scenario then and now, the following emerge. I hope few will dispute these.
a) There was no real estate boom then. There was no accusation of vested interests capturing thousands of acres in Hyderabad or around who could be against separation.
b) Average citizens were still to acquire property as the means were very limited and an own house was still a distant dream that too for a few. Mega housing projects like KPHB were still to be born.
c) IT Sector was unknown, Likewise Bio-technology or pharmaceutical sectors were also unknown. So there was no clamor of ‘I developed it’. Nor about jobs in private sector.
d) There were no parallel movements of serious nature for bifurcation of states elsewhere. So no question of opening a pandora’s box.
e) There was no demand whatsoever from Andhra movement for Hyderabad nor any discussion about its future status.
f) There were no regional parties like TDP or PRP dominated by coastal people having a vested interest in Hyderabad or Telangana.
g) More importantly there was no parallel movement in Telangana area seeking continued integration with rest of AP.
Still separate Andhra did not happen. Why?
…ponder
In 1969 we had a separate Telengana movement. Nothing came out of it except somebody became the Chief Minister.
In 1972 we had a bigger movement for separate Andhra. I remember north and south remained cut off for over a month. Till today’s turmoil, that was the strongest movement and yet no separation took place.
By contrasting of the scenario then and now, the following emerge. I hope few will dispute these.
a) There was no real estate boom then. There was no accusation of vested interests capturing thousands of acres in Hyderabad or around who could be against separation.
b) Average citizens were still to acquire property as the means were very limited and an own house was still a distant dream that too for a few. Mega housing projects like KPHB were still to be born.
c) IT Sector was unknown, Likewise Bio-technology or pharmaceutical sectors were also unknown. So there was no clamor of ‘I developed it’. Nor about jobs in private sector.
d) There were no parallel movements of serious nature for bifurcation of states elsewhere. So no question of opening a pandora’s box.
e) There was no demand whatsoever from Andhra movement for Hyderabad nor any discussion about its future status.
f) There were no regional parties like TDP or PRP dominated by coastal people having a vested interest in Hyderabad or Telangana.
g) More importantly there was no parallel movement in Telangana area seeking continued integration with rest of AP.
Still separate Andhra did not happen. Why?
…ponder
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Judiciary to the rescue
Evers since Mr.T.N. Seshan assumed the office of CEC, there has been a sea change in the public life of our country. Constitutional authorities discovered themselves and their power and more importantly how and when to wield it. The rise of the power of the constitutional authorities like Hon'ble Courts, CEC, CAG, has been directly in proportion to the fall that has set in the standards of our public life particularly in politics.
One good fallout is the rise in awareness and respect amongst people for the constitutional bodies bewildered by the political system. They are less disheartened now. Other avenues have opened up.
Just as vacuum cannot exist, any abdication of responsibility by one leads to another occupying that space, luckily with good results in most of the cases.
Any number of blunders or acts of commission and omissions are undone by Hon'ble Courts in a jiffy.
University students wanted their hostels and messes to remain open. With Hon'ble court’s intervention, they are open and heavens have not fallen. Likewise they wanted a rally on 3rd and again with Court’s conditional nod they can have one, hopefully a peaceful one especially because politicians are barred. Police have a difficult job on hand but the steam has to be let off.
There are any number of instances where a Court or a CEC or a CAG had to exercise the authority normally the domain of the Executive. In some cases, it has also been very convenient for the executive to tackle some unpopular or vexing problems, like demolitions, from behind the armor of judicial diktats.
In recent years Public Interest Litigations and Right To Information Act have at times prodded or aided the Executive into action.
All this tell us that (i) ours is a vibrant democracy despite some drawbacks and there is no need to lose heart; and (ii) politicians should take the cue and come back to the standards of pre/post independence days.
Today a Prime Minister or a Chief Minister cannot have people of his choice in his cabinet nor can he decide allocation of subjects. A Legislature Party cannot elect its Leader. This is true of most parties that come to power. Such abject surrender is not merely of power but responsibility also. This trend needs bucking.
Clouds do come with a silver lining.
…ponder
One good fallout is the rise in awareness and respect amongst people for the constitutional bodies bewildered by the political system. They are less disheartened now. Other avenues have opened up.
Just as vacuum cannot exist, any abdication of responsibility by one leads to another occupying that space, luckily with good results in most of the cases.
Any number of blunders or acts of commission and omissions are undone by Hon'ble Courts in a jiffy.
University students wanted their hostels and messes to remain open. With Hon'ble court’s intervention, they are open and heavens have not fallen. Likewise they wanted a rally on 3rd and again with Court’s conditional nod they can have one, hopefully a peaceful one especially because politicians are barred. Police have a difficult job on hand but the steam has to be let off.
There are any number of instances where a Court or a CEC or a CAG had to exercise the authority normally the domain of the Executive. In some cases, it has also been very convenient for the executive to tackle some unpopular or vexing problems, like demolitions, from behind the armor of judicial diktats.
In recent years Public Interest Litigations and Right To Information Act have at times prodded or aided the Executive into action.
All this tell us that (i) ours is a vibrant democracy despite some drawbacks and there is no need to lose heart; and (ii) politicians should take the cue and come back to the standards of pre/post independence days.
Today a Prime Minister or a Chief Minister cannot have people of his choice in his cabinet nor can he decide allocation of subjects. A Legislature Party cannot elect its Leader. This is true of most parties that come to power. Such abject surrender is not merely of power but responsibility also. This trend needs bucking.
Clouds do come with a silver lining.
…ponder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)