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
Sunday, January 17, 2010
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
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Andhra Pradesh
There are different conceptions about the formation of Andhra Pradesh and its name. It is for the scholars and research students to bring out the truth after poring through various records. Since I am neither, I can, but conjure what could have been.
Regarding formation of Visalandhra or Andhra Pradesh, I submit there was neither any popular movement nor any demand from any influential sections or interests for merging Andhra and Telangana. Definitely it was not on the Agenda of Potti Sriramulu nor other Andhra leaders who fought for separation from Madras alone.
After formation of Andhra, it must have been, then, a pragmatic and strategic decision taken in Delhi to merge the Telugu speaking areas oh Hyderabad with Andhra to prevent the former ruling cliche of Hyderabad from raising their secessionist head once for all. Please recall the Razakar movement and the Police Action. The principle of forming states on linguistic basis came in handy and Hyderabad state was trifurcated permanently and merged with three different contiguous states thus losing its homogenity and distinct identity. It will be interesting to note that Junagarh and Hyderabad, both of which tried to avoid signing the Instrument of Accession, were brought to heel by force and merged with erstwhile British administered states to stamp out all feudal traces.
Likewise regarding the name, those were the heady days with independence movement still fresh in memory and its allied trappings like Khadi, Hindi, etc. The Congress Party wanted to Hindi-ize everything where there was no opposition and the name suggested for residual Madras province was Dakshina Pradesh which was rejected outright by Tamils who continued with Madras till changed to Tamil Nadu which is not a Hindi word. The Telugus, who were more loyal than the king , meekly accepted Andhra Pradesh. This is also in line with the names of other States like Uttar Pradesh (United Provinces), Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Bharat), Himachal Pradesh (carved out of Punjab). Probably that is how Telangana got dropped and the state got its present name.
I stand corrected if I am wrong.
...ponder
Regarding formation of Visalandhra or Andhra Pradesh, I submit there was neither any popular movement nor any demand from any influential sections or interests for merging Andhra and Telangana. Definitely it was not on the Agenda of Potti Sriramulu nor other Andhra leaders who fought for separation from Madras alone.
After formation of Andhra, it must have been, then, a pragmatic and strategic decision taken in Delhi to merge the Telugu speaking areas oh Hyderabad with Andhra to prevent the former ruling cliche of Hyderabad from raising their secessionist head once for all. Please recall the Razakar movement and the Police Action. The principle of forming states on linguistic basis came in handy and Hyderabad state was trifurcated permanently and merged with three different contiguous states thus losing its homogenity and distinct identity. It will be interesting to note that Junagarh and Hyderabad, both of which tried to avoid signing the Instrument of Accession, were brought to heel by force and merged with erstwhile British administered states to stamp out all feudal traces.
Likewise regarding the name, those were the heady days with independence movement still fresh in memory and its allied trappings like Khadi, Hindi, etc. The Congress Party wanted to Hindi-ize everything where there was no opposition and the name suggested for residual Madras province was Dakshina Pradesh which was rejected outright by Tamils who continued with Madras till changed to Tamil Nadu which is not a Hindi word. The Telugus, who were more loyal than the king , meekly accepted Andhra Pradesh. This is also in line with the names of other States like Uttar Pradesh (United Provinces), Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Bharat), Himachal Pradesh (carved out of Punjab). Probably that is how Telangana got dropped and the state got its present name.
I stand corrected if I am wrong.
...ponder
Friday, December 18, 2009
My English translation of a cherished film song
Original Telugu
---------------
pallavi
-----------
mouname nee bhasha o mooga manasa
thalapulu ennenno kalaluga kantaavu
kallalu kagane kanneeravuthavu
charanam 1
-----------------
cheekati guha neevu chintala cheli neevu
natakaranganive manasa thegina pathanganive
enduku valachevo enduku vagachevo
enduku ragilevo emai migilevo
charanam 2
-----------------
korkela chela neevu koorimi vala neevu
uhala uyyalave manasa mayala dayyanive
lenidi korevu vunnadi vadilevu
oka porapatuku yugamulu pogilevu
English translation
-------------------
pallavi
---------
Silence is your language oh mute heart
thoughts are plenty which thou experience as dreams
once they turn out to be false you are full of tears
charanam 1
----------------
thou are that cave of darknesss - thou are the hand-maiden of worries
thou are that stage of drama - and a snapped kite
why do you pine - why do you regret
why do you burn - what are you finally left over as? (future is inscrutable)
charanam 2
-----------------
thou are the exuberence of desires - you are that net called love(friendship)
oh heart! thou are that swing of imagination - a witch full of tricks
you desire what you not possess - you let go what you possess
due to one mistake - you regret eons
(one word has many meanings. I have tried to put appropriate words to the best of my ability. I might not have done full justice. I know that.)
---------------
pallavi
-----------
mouname nee bhasha o mooga manasa
thalapulu ennenno kalaluga kantaavu
kallalu kagane kanneeravuthavu
charanam 1
-----------------
cheekati guha neevu chintala cheli neevu
natakaranganive manasa thegina pathanganive
enduku valachevo enduku vagachevo
enduku ragilevo emai migilevo
charanam 2
-----------------
korkela chela neevu koorimi vala neevu
uhala uyyalave manasa mayala dayyanive
lenidi korevu vunnadi vadilevu
oka porapatuku yugamulu pogilevu
English translation
-------------------
pallavi
---------
Silence is your language oh mute heart
thoughts are plenty which thou experience as dreams
once they turn out to be false you are full of tears
charanam 1
----------------
thou are that cave of darknesss - thou are the hand-maiden of worries
thou are that stage of drama - and a snapped kite
why do you pine - why do you regret
why do you burn - what are you finally left over as? (future is inscrutable)
charanam 2
-----------------
thou are the exuberence of desires - you are that net called love(friendship)
oh heart! thou are that swing of imagination - a witch full of tricks
you desire what you not possess - you let go what you possess
due to one mistake - you regret eons
(one word has many meanings. I have tried to put appropriate words to the best of my ability. I might not have done full justice. I know that.)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Hopefully...
Yesterday’s press meet of KCR was noteworthy for one home-truth - there can be agitations for separation but not for unity. If all are united where is the need for agitation? How true!
An interesting aspect of present turmoil is that the voices of protagonists of separate Andhra like Yalamanchili Sivaji and Chalasani are now muted. They are not seen on any channel. Given their track record, I don’t think they have become integrationists overnight.
We are hearing of statues of Potti Sriramulu being cleansed with milk by integrationists. But the fact is, Potti Sriramulu’s goal was not the present shape of AP, but the formation of a separate Andhra carved out of erstwhile Madras Presidency so that Andhras can self govern themselves and achieve their aspirations in dignity.
Telangana demand is also similar. However much one might try to paper over, their aspirations are not only about jobs, university seats or even development. It is also about ploughing one’s own furrow in dignity. Atleast now let us call a spade a spade.
How long this tragic-comedy will be enacted? Except for TRS, which has been steadfast in its speeches, goals and actions, all other political parties are somersaulting like buffoons except this is no laughing matter.
Except for a brief period when Sanjeeva Reddy/Chenna Reddy were Central ministers for Steel and Industries, no person from AP was thought fit to hold an important economic portfolio like Industries, Railways, Telecommunications, Defence which have huge budgets and vast scope for establishment of industries which in turn act as magnets for further development and economic well being of that area.
There is no worthwhile central or state industry in entire Andhra-Rayalaseema area except for a couple in Vizag. There is no hospital like AIIMS which could reach for the poor. There is no central institution of excellence like IIT/IIM. There is no Ordnance Factory. There is no Railway Production Unit. They could not get a mere 20 km sanctioned railway line between Kakinada and Pithapuram executed. Who is responsible for this and who has the moral authority to talk on behalf of Andhra Pradesh?
To add to the misfortune of the people, there is no Leader of caliber who is heard with respect either by Centre or its own people. There is not a single person – in politics or otherwise – who has a pan Andhra-Rayalaseema appeal. Leaders with impeccable credentials like Tanguturi, Tenneti, Vavilala don’t exist any more. The people of these regions are rudderless and the poor students are directionless. Abhorrence of violence, desisting from provocative tit-for-tat speeches, preserving public and private property and a sense of agreeing to disagree are the need of the hour in this drifting state.
Something always comes out of churning. Let us hope some good will come out of this turmoil to alleviate the miseries of the common man even while cooling the political temperatures. If it is by bifurcation or trifurcation – let so be it.
…ponder
An interesting aspect of present turmoil is that the voices of protagonists of separate Andhra like Yalamanchili Sivaji and Chalasani are now muted. They are not seen on any channel. Given their track record, I don’t think they have become integrationists overnight.
We are hearing of statues of Potti Sriramulu being cleansed with milk by integrationists. But the fact is, Potti Sriramulu’s goal was not the present shape of AP, but the formation of a separate Andhra carved out of erstwhile Madras Presidency so that Andhras can self govern themselves and achieve their aspirations in dignity.
Telangana demand is also similar. However much one might try to paper over, their aspirations are not only about jobs, university seats or even development. It is also about ploughing one’s own furrow in dignity. Atleast now let us call a spade a spade.
How long this tragic-comedy will be enacted? Except for TRS, which has been steadfast in its speeches, goals and actions, all other political parties are somersaulting like buffoons except this is no laughing matter.
Except for a brief period when Sanjeeva Reddy/Chenna Reddy were Central ministers for Steel and Industries, no person from AP was thought fit to hold an important economic portfolio like Industries, Railways, Telecommunications, Defence which have huge budgets and vast scope for establishment of industries which in turn act as magnets for further development and economic well being of that area.
There is no worthwhile central or state industry in entire Andhra-Rayalaseema area except for a couple in Vizag. There is no hospital like AIIMS which could reach for the poor. There is no central institution of excellence like IIT/IIM. There is no Ordnance Factory. There is no Railway Production Unit. They could not get a mere 20 km sanctioned railway line between Kakinada and Pithapuram executed. Who is responsible for this and who has the moral authority to talk on behalf of Andhra Pradesh?
To add to the misfortune of the people, there is no Leader of caliber who is heard with respect either by Centre or its own people. There is not a single person – in politics or otherwise – who has a pan Andhra-Rayalaseema appeal. Leaders with impeccable credentials like Tanguturi, Tenneti, Vavilala don’t exist any more. The people of these regions are rudderless and the poor students are directionless. Abhorrence of violence, desisting from provocative tit-for-tat speeches, preserving public and private property and a sense of agreeing to disagree are the need of the hour in this drifting state.
Something always comes out of churning. Let us hope some good will come out of this turmoil to alleviate the miseries of the common man even while cooling the political temperatures. If it is by bifurcation or trifurcation – let so be it.
…ponder
Friday, December 11, 2009
Formation of a new State
Article 3 of our Constitution states as under:-
Quote
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States – Parliament may by law –
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State.
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference ore within such further as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
Unquote
The President is not, however, bound by the views of the State Legislature, so ascertained.
By a simple majority and by ordinary Legislative process Parliament may form new States or alter the boundaries etc of existing States and thereby change the political map of India.
From the above it is obvious that there is no need for a resolution to be introduced and passed in the State Legislature for the formation of Telangana. Only when a Presidential reference is made, the State Legislature may (not mandatory) discuss and express its views or allow the period to expire without expressing its opinion.
So when Mr.Rosiah said yesterday that he has not received any instructions, either written or oral from the Centre to introduce a resolution, he was stating the obvious. He will never receive such instructions. It is another matter if his party instructs him to introduce and pass a resolution (superfluous to the constitutional process) in the Legislature with whip duly issued to its Members for bringing its Legislators in line at the pain of losing Membership.
So when Mr.Pillai, Home Secretary stated that the process has started, he might have meant that the Home Ministry has approached or initiated action for approaching the Presidential Secretariat for obtaining the Presidential recommendation which is the first mandatory step for the process.
Mr.Lagadapati Rajagopal’s demand for introduction of a resolution in the Legislature without the issue of a whip, is neither a constitutional requirement nor in keeping with the traditions of our political parties which never dare to allow its Members to vote according to the dictates of their conscience.
Creation of Telangana is the sole prerogative of the Centre and if it has the political will nothing can stop as demonstrated when the three States of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh were created.
The resignations of Legislators are neither serious nor done in a fit of emotion. It is a calculated and calibrated move to douse public ire which is also the need of the hour. History is repeating itself. We know what happened in 1971.
…ponder
Quote
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States – Parliament may by law –
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State.
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference ore within such further as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
Unquote
The President is not, however, bound by the views of the State Legislature, so ascertained.
By a simple majority and by ordinary Legislative process Parliament may form new States or alter the boundaries etc of existing States and thereby change the political map of India.
From the above it is obvious that there is no need for a resolution to be introduced and passed in the State Legislature for the formation of Telangana. Only when a Presidential reference is made, the State Legislature may (not mandatory) discuss and express its views or allow the period to expire without expressing its opinion.
So when Mr.Rosiah said yesterday that he has not received any instructions, either written or oral from the Centre to introduce a resolution, he was stating the obvious. He will never receive such instructions. It is another matter if his party instructs him to introduce and pass a resolution (superfluous to the constitutional process) in the Legislature with whip duly issued to its Members for bringing its Legislators in line at the pain of losing Membership.
So when Mr.Pillai, Home Secretary stated that the process has started, he might have meant that the Home Ministry has approached or initiated action for approaching the Presidential Secretariat for obtaining the Presidential recommendation which is the first mandatory step for the process.
Mr.Lagadapati Rajagopal’s demand for introduction of a resolution in the Legislature without the issue of a whip, is neither a constitutional requirement nor in keeping with the traditions of our political parties which never dare to allow its Members to vote according to the dictates of their conscience.
Creation of Telangana is the sole prerogative of the Centre and if it has the political will nothing can stop as demonstrated when the three States of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh were created.
The resignations of Legislators are neither serious nor done in a fit of emotion. It is a calculated and calibrated move to douse public ire which is also the need of the hour. History is repeating itself. We know what happened in 1971.
…ponder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)