History (Merger) of Telangana and Andhra
In December 1953, the States Reorganization Commission was appointed to prepare for the creation of states on linguistic lines.[22] The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telangana region with Andhra state, despite their common language because of following factors:
(1) Opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit; public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself.
(2) Important leaders of public opinion in Andhra themselves seem to appreciate that the unification of Telangana with Andhra, though desirable, should be based on a voluntary and willing association of the people and that it is primarily for the people of Telangana to take a decision about their future.
(3) Telangana region had a less-developed economy than Andhra, but with a larger revenue base (mostly because it taxed rather than prohibited alcoholic beverages), which people of Telangana feared might be diverted for use in Andhra.
(4) People of Telangana feared that planned irrigation projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers would not benefit Telangana proportionately, even though people of Telangana controlled the headwaters of the rivers.
(5) People of Telangana feared that the people of Andhra, who had access to higher standards of education under the British rule, would have an unfair advantage in seeking government and educational jobs.
The commission proposed that the Telangana region be constituted as a separate state with a provision for unification with Andhra state, after the 1961 general elections, if a resolution could be passed in the Telangana state assembly with a two-thirds majority.
The Chief Minister of Hyderabad State, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, expressed his view that a majority of Telangana people were against the merger.[23] He supported the Congress party's central leadership decision to merge Telangana and Andhra despite opposition in Telangana.[24] Andhra state assembly passed a resolution on 25 November 1955 to provide safeguards to Telangana. The resolution said, "Assembly would further like to assure the people in Telangana that the development of that area would be deemed to be special charge, and that certain priorities and special protection will be given for the improvement of that area, such as reservation in services and educational institutions on the basis of population and irrigational development."[25] Telangana leaders did not believe the safeguards would work. [26][27]With lobbying from Andhra Congress leaders and with pressure from the Central leadership of Congress party, an agreement was reached between Telangana leaders and Andhra leaders on 20 February 1956 to merge Telangana and Andhra with promises to safeguard Telangana's interests.[28][29]
Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru initially was skeptical of merging Telangana with Andhra State, fearing a "tint of expansionist imperialism" in it.[30] [31] He compared the merger to a matrimonial alliance having "provisions for divorce" if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well.[32][33]
Following the Gentlemen's agreement, the central government established a unified Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956.[19][34][35] The agreement provided reassurances to Telangana in terms of power-sharing as well as administrative domicile rules and distribution of expenses of various regions.
Anti-Nehru politics emerged with the repression of the Telengana movement; many within the Congress Party extended their hands to leftist causes. Feroze Gandhi was among them.[36]
Gentleman's Agreement: (Salient points)
The agreement provided safeguards with the purpose of preventing discrimination against Telangana by the government of Andhra Pradesh.
A. Administration
1. For the more convenient transaction of the business of Government with regard to some specified matters the Telangana area will be treated as one region.
2. For the Telangana region there will be a Regional Standing Committee of the state assembly consisting of the members of the State Assembly belonging to that region including the Ministers from that region but not including the Chief Minister.
4. Legislation relating to specified matters will be referred to the Regional committee. In respect of specified matters proposals may also be made by the Regional Committee to the State Government for legislation or with regard to the question of general policy not involving any financial commitments other than expenditure of a routine and incidental character.
5. The advice tendered by the Regional Committee will normally be accepted by the Government and the State Legislature. In case of difference of opinion, reference will be made to the Governor whose decision will be binding.
6. The Regional Committee will deal with following matters:
- i) Development and economic planning within the framework of the general development plans formulated by the State Legislature.
- ii) Local Self Government, that is to say, the Constitutional powers of Municipal Corporations, Improvement Trusts, District Boards and district authorities for the purpose of Local Self Government or Village Administration.
- iii) Public health and sanitation, local hospitals and dispensaries.
- iv) Primary and secondary education.
- v)Regulation of admission to the educational institutions in the telangana region.
- vi)Prohibition
- vii) Sale of agricultural lands.
- viii) Cottage and small scale Industries, and
- ix) Agriculture, Cooperative Societies, Markets and Fairs.
Unless revised by agreement earlier this arrangement will be reviewed after ten years.
B. Domicile Rules : A temporary provision be made to ensure that for a period of five years, Telangana is regarded as a unit as far as recruitment to subordinate services is concerned; posts borne on the cadre of these services may be reserved for being filled up by persons who satisfy the domicile conditions as prescribed under the existing Hyderabad Mulki Rules. ( 12 years of Stay in Telangana area)
C. The position of Urdu. The Government of India would advise the state Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that the existing position of Urdu in administrative and judicial structure of the State is maintained for a period of five years.
D. Retrenchment of surplus personnel in the new State. The Government of India do not anticipate any retrenchment. the intention is that so far as possible, the service personnel from the Hyderabad State should be automatically integrated into the services of the Andhra Pradesh without any process of screening. Should, however, any retrenchment be found necessary, the entire personnel of the services of the enlarged State will be treated on equal footing.
E. Distribution of expenditure between Telangana and Andhra Regions. Allocation of expenditure with the resources of the state is a matter which falls within the purview of the State Government and the State Legislature.. Since , however, it has been agreed to the representatives of Andhra and Telangana that the expenditure of the new state on central and general administration should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of income should be reserved for expenditure on the development of Telangana area, it is open to the state government to act in accordance with the terms of agreement in making budgetary allocations. The Government of India propose to invite the attention of the Chief Minister of Andhra to this particular understanding and to express the hope that it will be implemented.
F. The existing educational facilities including Technical Education in Telangana should be secured to the students of Telangana and further improved---
G. The cabinet will consist of members in proportion of 60:40 percent for Andhra and Telangana respectively, out of 40 % of Telangana ministers, one will be a Muslim from Telangana. If the Chief Minister is from one region the other region should be given Dy Chief Ministership
Grievances of Telanganites:
Defectors from the Congress, led by M. Chenna Reddy, founded the Telangana Praja Samithi (TPS) political party in 1969.They gave up their agitation in September 1971 after realizing that the Prime Minister was not inclined to towards a separate state of Telangana, and rejoined the safer political haven of the Congress ranks.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was strongly against the division of the state, but on her recommendation, P. V. Narasimha Rao became the first Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh from Telangana on 30 September 1971.
JAI ANDHRA MOVEMENT 1972: Under the Mulki rules in force at the time, anyone who had lived in Hyderabad for 15 years was considered a local, and was thus eligible for certain government posts. When the Supreme Court upheld the Mulki rules at the end of 1972, the Jai Andhra movement, with the aim of re-forming a separate state of Andhra, was started in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions.[34] P. V. Narasimha Rao resigned as Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh on 10 January 1973, and President's rule was declared in the state.
Six-Point Formula of 1973:
- Accelerated development of the backward areas of the State, and planned development of the State capital, with specific resources earmarked for these purposes; and appropriate representation of such backward areas in the State legislature, along with other experts, should formulate and monitor development schemes for the areas. The formation at the State level of a Planning Board as well as Sub-Committees for different backward areas should be the appropriate instrument for achieving this objective.
- Institution of uniform arrangements throughout the State enabling adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of admission to educational institutions, and establishment of a new Central University at Hyderabad to argument the exiting educational facilities should be the basis of the educational policy of the State.
- Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates should be given preference to specified extent in the matter of direct recruitment to (i) non-gazetted posts (other than in the Secretariat. Offices of Heads of Department, other State level offices and institutions and the Hyderabad City Police) (ii) corresponding posts under the local bodies and (iii) the posts of Tahsildars, Junior Engineers and Civil Assistant Surgeons. In order to improve their promotion prospects, service cadres should be organised to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified gazetted level, first or second, as may be administratively convenient.
- A high-power administrative tribunal should be constituted to deal with the grievances of services regarding appointments, seniority, promotion and other allied matters. The decisions of the Tribunal should ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The constitution of such a tribunal would justify limits on recourse to judiciary in such matters.
- In order that implementation of measures based on the above principles does not give rise to litigation and consequent uncertainty, the Constitution should be suitably amended to the extent necessary conferring on the President enabling powers in this behalf.
- The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary.[35
(i) Maintain status quo
This implies treating the issue as basically a law and order/public order challenge to be handled by the State government Such an approach is based on the history of the last 54 years when the demand for a separate State of Telangana was dealt with mainly in a political manner by accommodating different interest groups in the government and the party structure. At the same time, it is noticed that the emotional appeal of ‘Telugu Pride' was invoked to keep separatist sentiments in check with the result that the demand for Telangana subsided, but did not entirely disappear. It resurfaced in the post-2000 period with the rationale virtually being the same as in the earlier movements for Telangana, such as the partial implementation of the Gentlemen's Agreement, unsatisfactory implementation of Presidential Order of 1975 on employment issues, the gap in educational standards among the regions, the denial of fair share of water and irrigation resources, and perceived neglect in economic development of Telangana region. Above all, there were the sentimental and emotional reasons and attachment to a long held desire for a separate State of Telangana. The Committee did not find any real evidence of any major neglect by the State government in matters of overall economic development.
However, there are some continuing concerns regarding public employment, education, and water and irrigation, which have been dealt with in the respective chapters of the Report. Since the emotional satisfaction of the people of Telangana will not be met if no steps are taken, it is anticipated that immediate backlash will take place in the form of violent agitations in the region which may continue for some time. Besides, sporadic agitations on specific demands in different areas may continue even for a longer period. With Telangana Praja Front (TPF-Gaddar) once again joining hands with TRS, indications are that such agitations are likely to be highly emotional and serious. These agitations will have immediate impact on the normal life in and around Hyderabad, thus once again affecting the city's image and putting a question mark on its economic growth momentum. As has happened earlier, people's representatives from the region MLAs/MLCs/MPs belonging to different political parties would come under pressure to resign, which may once again lead to a political crisis. The Maoist movement is also likely to get a fillip in such a situation. In view of the complex background of the situation and the rather serious and sensitive emotional aspects involved, the Committee is of the unanimous view that it would not be practical to simply maintain the status quo in respect of the situation. Some intervention is definitely required and though maintaining the existing status quo is an option, it is favoured the least.
(ii) Bifurcation of the State into Seemandhra and Telangana; with Hyderabad as a Union Territory and the two States developing their own capitals in due course
(a) This option underscores the pivotal position of Hyderabad historically and its economic significance at all levels — regional, national and international. Hyderabad is now regarded as an engine of growth in view of its position in the global economy as being a hub of Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES). Besides, it has a thriving real estate industry with strong participation of national players in addition to regional firms. It also has a manufacturing base in the nearby Rangareddy district which has attracted investors from Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions as well as from outside.
A number of public sector organisations, national institutions, civil and military establishments and defence institutions are also located in and around Hyderabad. Over the years, migration has completely changed the demographics of the city and the total number of people from other regions and from outside the State residing in the metropolis is very substantial and estimated to be more than one-third of the population of Greater Hyderabad Metropolitan area. Only continued economic growth can lead to expansion of employment opportunities and therefore, the current economic inter-linkages of Hyderabad with other regions need to be developed and preserved so that there is an assured climate of certainty and stable business environment.
The situation of Hyderabad can be compared with the metropolis of Brussels in Belgium. In 1968, Belgium had erupted in a series of riots on the question of who had a claim to Brussels city, which is barely inside the northern Flammand region. The only way to settle the issue was to declare that Belgium was a country of two cultures and three regions.
It is to be noted that Belgium has a population of about 10 million, out of which 6 million in the northern part of the country are Flemish speaking while 4 million, who are mainly concentrated in the south of Belgium, speak French. There is also a small German speaking minority. Belgium is thus constituted as a federation of three language communities — Flemish, French and German. The capital region of Brussels, therefore, is organised altogether as a separate bilingual capital region with an independent administrative setup and jurisdiction. Andhra Pradesh, however, by and large, has a common culture and was constituted as the first linguistic (Telugu) State. In our context, when there are equally strong competing claims on a thriving urban conglomerate, the Union Territory model is often considered workable and accordingly, in this option it is suggested that if the State of Andhra Pradesh is divided into two units, then Hyderabad could become a Union Territory with a common capital for the present and the States eventually developing their own capitals over time. As revenues from the proposed Union Territory would go to the Central government, a mutually agreed formula for equitable apportionment of the grants could be devised for all the three regions.
(b) It is considered that this option would be more acceptable to the people from Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions as their economic interests in Hyderabad would remain protected though they would prefer that the State stays united with Hyderabad as its capital. However, this option also has severe implications and will, in all probability, give rise to a renewed and serious agitation by the people of Telangana insisting on inclusion of Hyderabad only in Telangana and making the functioning/ governance of the Union Territory a very difficult task. Besides, the geographical contiguity and access to Hyderabad, to which strong economic and personal linkages of people from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema exist, will be physically cut off with two districts i.e. Nalgonda towards Coastal Andhra and Mahabubnagar towards Rayalaseema (both districts part of Telangana) lying in between the boundaries of the three regions. This situation could be used by agitators in blocking supplies, drinking water etc. Another drawback of this option will be that the sentimental and emotional satisfaction of having a new State of Telangana would remain unfulfilled if Hyderabad were not to be included in it. If Hyderabad, which has always been considered an integral part of Telangana, does not form part of the new State, it will give rise to serious discontent and agitations and the problem will continue.
In the Committee's assessment, there is a definite likelihood of serious immediate backlash in Telangana region causing similar problems as have been indicated in option (i) above. On overall consideration, therefore, the Committee found this option also not practicable.
(iii) Bifurcation of State into Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions with Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telangana
(a) This suggestion was put to the Committee as the second preference by some sections of the people of Rayalaseema region. Their first preference was for a united Andhra. AIMIM also, while strongly advocating the cause of united Andhra Pradesh as being in the best interest of economic growth and welfare of the minority Muslim community, stated that in the event of division of the State it would be in the community's interest to form a new State combining the regions of Telangana and Rayalaseema. Their argument is based on the demographic composition of Rayalaseema which has over 12 per cent Muslim population as compared to just about 8 per cent in the rest of Telangana (i.e. excluding Hyderabad). The Muslim community in this scenario will get greater political space. A second rationale for combining the two regions is suggested by the economic analysis of the State which has shown that Rayalaseema is the most backward of the three regions. It is dependent on Telangana for water and irrigation resources and values its access to Hyderabad for employment and education. There is also greater social homogeneity between the two regions. It is for these reasons that given a choice between coastal Andhra and Telangana, the Rayalaseema people may prefer to join Telangana. Our analysis suggests that primarily taking economic and social parameters into account, this would be a viable and sustainable option.
(b) On the other hand, however, such a move will be strongly resisted by all political parties and groups from Telangana region (outside of the old city of Hyderabad) as most of them believe that Rayalaseema political leadership has been one of the most important contributory factors in keeping them at a disadvantage while at the same time exploiting their land resources. The Committee discussed the possibility of this option with almost all the groups of Telangana and noted that not even one of them favoured such an option and as a matter of fact, conveyed their vehement opposition to it.
(c) In a nutshell, this scenario is not likely to be accepted either by the pro-Telangana or by the pro-united Andhra protagonists. Besides, it is one in which one can anticipate emergence of fundamentalist forces from amongst the competing political parties and groups. Agitations, particularly in Telangana area, against such a recommendation are also not ruled out. While this option may have economic justification, the Committee believes that this option may not offer a resolution which would be acceptable to people of all three regions.
(iv) Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with enlarged Hyderabad Metropolis as a separate Union Territory. This Union Territory will have geographical linkage.
(a) This option flows from option (ii) which highlights the characteristics of Hyderabad as a growing global city. The city's boundaries have recently been revised to extend the municipal limits from the 175 Km {+2} of the erstwhile MCH to 625 km {+2} of the current GHMC. The erstwhile HUDA has been replaced by an expanded HMDA, headed by the Chief Minister, with a substantial area of 7,073 km {+2}, which is about twice the size of the State of Goa. In this option an extended Union Territory of approx. 12,000 km {+2} has been proposed. The extended Union Territory will comprise 67 mandals, 1,330 villages, 12,430 km {+2} area.
(b) In the view of the Committee, Hyderabad region is critical to the growing economy of the State and the nation as a whole. Its GDP is becoming increasingly centred in the modern services and transport sector which accounted for 58 per cent of its GDP in 2005-06, up from 43 per cent in 1999-2000. Being the main software centre of Andhra Pradesh, it also accounts for 15 per cent of the national IT exports. Besides, infrastructure and real estate are the other key growth areas in Hyderabad. As discussed earlier , the city has deep social linkages with the rest of the State and this is reflected in the transport links as well as in the immigration from the other regions. Earlier migrants from outside the State were mainly from Karnataka and Maharashtra, but of late the share of eastern and northern States has visibly increased and the pattern is now closer to that of Mumbai which reflects its growing integration with the national economy. Hyderabad is also a strategically important city for the nation. It hosts many institutions of excellence and establishments of strategic importance. These not only source talent from all over the country, but are also vital from the national security perspective.
(c) In view of these considerations, it was found necessary to suggest an expanded Union Territory as an option. The merit of this suggestion is that all the three regions will have geographical contiguity and physical access to Hyderabad metropolis. It may also house the capitals of both Telangana and Seemandhra as in the Chandigarh model with a separate Union Territory administrative setup. Most of the administrative, police, etc. officers will be drawn from the existing State cadres. Plenty of space will be available for infrastructure development. Since this would be a reasonably larger area with a population of well over 10 million people, the model could be a mix of Chandigarh and Delhi UTs i.e. it may have its own Legislative Assembly.
As has happened in Chandigarh, over the years its neighbouring towns Mohali, Derabassi, Panchkula and Parwanoo, etc. in Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh have seen remarkable growth and development. Also around Delhi, towns like Gurgaon, Sonepat and Faridabad in Haryana and Ghaziabad, Noida in U.P. have come up and are experiencing high growth and appreciable development owing to the capital growth centre. Similarly, within this proposed new Union Territory, all the three neighbouring regions (Telangana, Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema) will automatically piggyback on the economic engine of Hyderabad metropolis and gain full momentum for achieving appreciable economic growth and employment.
This option can perhaps be made acceptable to all three regions. It is anticipated that demand for a separate Rayalaseema may also get initiated in the event of separation of Telangana and if a decision to that effect is taken for a separate Rayalaseema at any given time in the future, the Rayalaseema capital could also be housed in this larger Union Territory. Since the revenues from the U.T. will go to the Central exchequer, the Union Government in consultation with the new States, representing all the three regions, can work out a mutually acceptable formula for equitable apportionment of the grants based on the revenues earned from the Union Territory.
(d) On the flip side, it may be stated that this proposal will receive stiff opposition from Telangana protagonists for two reasons (i)Telangana has always considered Hyderabad as an integral part of the region and they would not be happy with a common capital of all the regions located in Hyderabad and (ii) partly merging portions of the two Telangana districts i.e. Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar may also be resented (although in the long term these districts/mandals are expected to grow economically at a much faster pace than at present).
Besides, there may be opposition from all the three regions that part of the State i.e. Hyderabad and adjoining areas will become a Union Territory. As Hyderabad is a major economic hub and the capital city, which the State has nourished and developed over a period of time, this proposal may find opposition from several quarters. As such, while there are some positives of this option it may be difficult to reach a political consensus in making this solution acceptable to all. Particularly from Telangana, serious resistance and agitation on this issue could be expected.
It also has to be borne in mind that Telangana with or without Hyderabad is likely to experience a spurt in Maoist activity. This aspect has been covered in detail in the Chapter on Law and Order and Internal Security.
(v) Bifurcation of the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per existing boundaries with Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana, and Seemandhra to have a new capital
(a) In this option there would be a clear division of Andhra Pradesh into two States – Telangana and Seemandhra and in the interim, Hyderabad will continue to house both the capitals till a new capital for Seemandhra is created. For creation of a new capital, a large investment would be required, provision for which will have to be made both by the Union and the State governments. This option implies accepting the full demands of a large majority of Telangana people for a separate State that will assuage their emotional feelings and sentiments as well as the perceived sense of discrimination and neglect. The Committee's impression, gained during its extensive tours of Telangana region, indicated that a very large number of people from Telangana were highly supportive of the demand for a separate Telangana; an appreciable segment was found to be neutral; while some sections were not in favour of it. The Committee observed — Strong pro-Telangana elements in Warangal, west Khammam, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, southern Adilabad, Siddipet area of Medak, parts of Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar and some areas of Ranga Reddy. The most vociferous and agitating sections are the students (particularly in Osmania and Kakatiya Universities), the unemployed youth, the lawyers and the non-gazetted government employees.
The neutral elements include the original population of Hyderabad, including large segments of AIMIM, the villages/mandals bordering Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and Karnataka; the settler villages/mandals in the Telangana heartland (Khammam, Karimnagar, Nizamabad etc.) and the migrant population in HMDA from Seemandhra and other parts of the country;
The aspirations of a large section of tribals on the northern side of Telangana, particularly the hill tribals, are for a separate State of Manyaseema and of the tribal belt which cuts across Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, to be under a single administrative system; the SCs/BCs and the minorities have their own aspirations for appropriate political space, economic development and reservation benefits.
(b) The implications of this option are that (i) if earlier agitations are anything to go by, this decision will give rise to serious and violent agitations in the Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, where the backlash will be immediate; the key issues being Hyderabad and sharing of water and irrigation resources; (ii) there will be every likelihood of pressure being put by the general public on the leaders of the political parties of Seemandhra region (MLAs/MLCs/MPs) to resign and fight for united Andhra Pradesh.
6. Keep the state united, and simultaneously provide development for Telangana through an empowered Telangana Regional Council
The committee considers this the best option of all - both for the state and for the country - and also says that this model might help address regional aspirations in other parts of the country. Committee said it could be done through the establishment of a statutory and empowered Telangana Regional Council with adequate transfer of funds, functions and functionaries. “The Regional Council would provide a legislative consultative mechanism for the subjects to be dealt with by the Council.” managing water and irrigation resources equitably, a technical body — water management board — and an irrigation project development corporation with an expanded role were recommended. This should meet all the issues raised by the Telangana people satisfactorily, it said. Flagging socio-economic development and good governance as the core issue, the Committee, keeping the national perspective in mind, was of the considered view that “this option stands out as the best way forward.”
JTM was not about ‘administrative convenience’ through ‘reducing the size of Andhra Pradesh’ as is diplomatically raised by parties and groups like the BJP and RSS. As a matter of fact, once the demand is conceded, Telangana would be a State bigger than 16 of the existing States in India today! With a population that is more than one-and-a-half times that of Nepal, the Telangana State would be of 3.5 crore size. Unlike other three States which were created by the BJP in the year 2000, the State of Telangana does not require any special money for the construction of its State capital city, as the centuries-old Hyderabad is located in the heart of Telangana itself!
Nor is it about ‘regional development’ of ‘backward Telangana’. But it is about the state response to the most democratic demand of creation of a new State. In any case, it is ridiculous to view the Telangana State demand as a demand for either ‘welfare’ or ‘development’, be it regionally or economically, as is propagated by the present Chief Minister. Because, once such argument is promoted, then there are electoral Communists ready to join the chorus of raising the question of ‘backward regions’ and demand to treat Telangana on par with those backward regions of the State, namely, Rayalaseema, Uttarandhra etc. Then they would be generously seeking ‘packages’, ‘development funds’ from the Central Government and thereby confusing the genuine demand of Telangana State once and for all.
Hi Nice Post,For More Updates
ReplyDeleteBest Joint Replacement Hospital in Hyderabad