Salient Features and Way Forward
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
The Report begins with the Prologue with a Quotation of Jawaharlal Nehru taken from his speech “Disputes and Discord‟ made in the United Nations General Assembly on October 3, 1960 where he said that: “In ages long past a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real victory was one in which all were equally victorious and there was defeat for no one. In the world today that is the only practical victory; any other way will lead to disaster”.
In the Prologue the Committee mentioned that it has not been an easy task for them to prepare the report and to tackle the task. They also touched about formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956 as the first linguistic (Telugu) state. There was a reference to the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”, the objective of which was to bring the less developed region of Telangana on par with the rest of the state.
The Terms of Reference of the Committee stipulated that the Committee has to examine the situation in the State of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the demand for a separate State of Telangana as well as the demand for maintaining the present status of a united Andhra Pradesh. The basic approach adopted by the Committee was to Invite the views and the suggestions from the members of the public as well as other stakeholders as well as hold consultations with various political parties and other identified groups.
Accordingly consultations with the various groups were broadly done in two phases. The Committee or its Members individually visited all the 23 districts of the State and several villages. Internal analysis and assessment of the issues involved was carried out by the Committee based on the feedback and inputs received.
In the first Chapter the Committee gave a broad picture of developments in AP, its historical Background with specific reference to Andhra Pradesh during 1956-1973, during 1973-2000, during 2001-2009 and between November 29, 2009 to December 31, 2010. It referred to Sri Bagh Pact; “States Reorganization Commission”; principle of linguistic homogeneity as the basis to recommend the reorganization of states; case for Vishalandhra; leading protagonists of Telangana like K.V. Ranga Reddy and Dr M. Chenna Reddy demanding for two separate Telugu states; “Safeguards for Telangana” and signing of Gentlemen’s agreement; differing views on the name of the new state including that of “Andhra Telangana”; formation of regional standing committee of the State Assembly and so on.
It also mentioned about the agitation that began in December, 1968, initially based on discontent in service and employment matters and further covering financial matters called “Telangana revenue surpluses” that quickly spread like wild fire all over Telangana area with devastating effect. Reference was also made to agitation that began in Telangana in January, 1969, as a consequence of a High Court judgment holding that the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board did not come under the purview of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957.
The other seven Chapters broadly dealt on Regional Economic and Equity Analysis; Education and Health; Water Resources, Irrigation and Power Development; Public Employment Issues; Issues Relating to Hyderabad Metropolis; Sociological and Cultural Issues and Law & Order and Internal Security Dimensions. The last Chapter was the Way Forward-the important one.
After going into all aspects of the situation as well as keeping in view the local, regional and national perspective, the Committee considered and offered solutions and possible options.
The first Option is to “Maintain status quo”. According to the Committee this implies treating the issue as basically a law and order/public order challenge to be handled by the state government, not requiring any major intervention by the Union Government. The demand for a separate state of Telangana during the last 54 years was dealt with mainly in a political manner by accommodating different interest groups in the government and the party structure. Emotional appeal of “Telugu Pride” was invoked to keep separatist sentiments in check. It resurfaced in the post -2000 period with the rationale virtually being the same as in the earlier movements for Telangana, based on exploitation and under development. There were also the sentimental and emotional reasons and attachment to a long held desire for a separate state of Telangana.
The Committee however did not find any real evidence of any major neglect by the state government in matters of overall economic development. 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. These agitations will have immediate impact on the normal life in and around Hyderabad. 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.
The Committee is of the unanimous view that it would not be practical to simply maintain the status quo in respect of the situation. Maintaining the existing status quo is an option, it is favored the least.
The Second option suggested is “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”. This option according to the Committee 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; has a thriving real estate industry; has a manufacturing base; has a number of public sector organizations; national institutions; civil and military establishments and defense institutions. 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.
Andhra Pradesh, by and large, has a common culture and was constituted as the first linguistic (Telugu) state. The Union Territory model is 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. This option would be more acceptable to the people from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions as their economic interests in Hyderabad would remain protected.
Committee feels that 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 and governance of the Union Territory a very difficult task. This situation could be used by agitators in blocking supplies, drinking water from the adjoining boundary districts. Another drawback of this option would 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. In the Committee’s assessment, and based on overall consideration, the Committee found this option also not practicable.
The third option of the Committee is “Bifurcation of State into Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions with Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telangana”. This is based on the demographic composition of Rayalaseema which has over 12% Muslim population as compared to just about 8% 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. There is also greater social homogeneity between the two regions. Analysis suggests that primarily taking economic and social parameters into account this would be a viable and sustainable option. 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.
In a nutshell, this scenario is not likely to be accepted either by the pro-Telangana or by the pro-united Andhra protagonists according to the Committee. 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. The Committee believes that this option may not offer a resolution which would be acceptable to people of all three regions.
The fourth option of the Committee is “Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with enlarged Hyderabad Metropolis as a separate Union Territory. This Union Territory will have geographical linkage and contiguity via Nalgonda district in the south-east to district Guntur in coastal Andhra and via Mahboobnagar district in the south to Kurnool district in Rayalaseema”. This option 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 Square Km of the erstwhile MCH to 625 Square km of the current GHMC. The erstwhile HUDA has been replaced by an expanded HMDA, headed by the Chief Minister, with a substantial area of 7073 Square km, which is about twice the size of the state of Goa. In this option an extended Union Territory of approximately 12,000 Square km has been proposed. Ranga Reddy 4186 Square km, Medak 1776 Square km, Mahboobnagar 3109 Square km, Nalgonda 3142 Square km and Hyderabad 217 Square km. Total 12430 Square km.
In the view of the Committee, Hyderabad region is critical to the growing economy of the state and the nation as a whole. The city has deep social linkages with the rest of the state. The pattern to the city 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.
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 set up. 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, within this proposed new Union Territory, all the three neighboring 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. 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.
According to the Committee this proposal will receive stiff opposition from Telangana protagonists and 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. This proposal may find opposition from several quarters. 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.
The fifth option given and probably the most acceptable option for Telangana people is “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”.
In this option suggested by the Committee, 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 favor 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 Manayaseema 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.
The Committee however feels that, this decision will give rise to serious and violent agitations in the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, the key issues being Hyderabad and sharing of water and irrigation resources. There will be 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. The agitation for separation of Rayalaseema from coastal Andhra may also start taking shape sooner than expected. The apprehensions of the people of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema will continue to be voiced. There will be impact on internal security situation with the anticipated growth of Naxalism and religious fundamentalism.
The Committee further opines that the division of the state will also have serious implications outside Andhra Pradesh. The issue requires a most calm and dispassionate consideration of the consequences. The matter should also be seen in the larger context of whether a region can be allowed to decide for itself what its political status should be, as that would only create a demand for a great number of small states resulting in problems of coordination and management.
Discussing the issue further Committee says that, the economic dimension is also not to be lost sight of. It is normally believed that formation of smaller states contributes to pre-existing barriers to inter-state and intra¬state trade and movement of goods and services. There can also be an apprehension that Hyderabad city as a market destination and also a source of supply will be out of bounds on the creation of Telangana with Hyderabad as a separate state. On this count, division of Andhra Pradesh can only be a negative factor which would inhibit the economic growth of the newly formed states. Economically, the land locked region of Telangana may also lose out on access and opportunities to the eastern coastline which has a major port in Vishakhapatnam and many other sea ports. However, the overall economic viability of Telangana with Hyderabad is projected to be stable and as a matter of fact the GDP of this state will be much larger than many other states in the country.
Committee is of the view that given the long history of the demand for a separate Telangana, the highly charged emotions at present and the likelihood of the agitation continuing in case the demand is not met (unless handled deftly, tactfully and firmly as discussed under option six), consideration has to be given to this option. The continuing demand for a separate Telangana, the Committee felt, has some merit and is not entirely unjustified. In case this option is exercised, the apprehensions of the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema people and others who have settled in Hyderabad and other districts of Telangana with regard to their investments, properties, livelihood and employment, would need to be adequately addressed and confidence instilled that their safety and security would get the highest priority from the new dispensation. Considering all aspects, the Committee felt that while creation of a separate Telangana would satisfy a large majority of people from the region, it would also throw up several other serious problems as indicated above. Therefore, after taking into account all the pros and cons, the Committee did not think it to be the most preferred, but the second best option. Separation is recommended only in case it is unavoidable and if this decision can be reached amicably amongst all the three regions.
The Sixth and last option suggested by the Committee is “Keeping the State united by simultaneously providing certain definite Constitutional/Statutory measures for socio-economic development and political empowerment of Telangana region – creation of a statutorily empowered Telangana Regional Council”.
In view of various considerations indicated earlier, the Committee believes that overall it may not be necessary to have a duplication or multiplication of capitals, assemblies, ministries, courts, institutions and administrative infrastructure required by the other options. The Committee considers that unity is in the best interest of all the three regions of the state as internal partitions would not be conducive to providing sustainable solutions to the issues at hand. In this option, it is proposed to keep the state united and provide constitutional and statutory measures to address the core socio-economic concerns about development of Telangana region. This can be done through the establishment of a statutory and empowered Telangana Regional Council with adequate transfer of funds, functions and functionaries in keeping with the spirit of Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956.
The Regional Council envisaged by the Committee would provide a legislative consultative mechanism for the subjects to be dealt with by the Council. If the Council forwards a resolution to the Government for enacting certain legislation on the subjects within its domain, such a resolution shall be discussed in the Assembly for becoming a law. An Apex Committee headed by the Governor with preferably an equal number of members from the two regions with the Governor having the casting vote may be constituted to resolve matters of difference. The suggested membership of this Apex Committee could be the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, Speaker, Chairman of the Legislative Council, Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council, Chairman of the Telangana Regional Council and an eminent, apolitical and respected Jurist who is well versed with constitutional law and regional issues.
The illustrated list of suggested subjects that can be dealt with by the proposed Telangana Regional Council could be: Planning & Economic Development, including preparation of development sub-plan (excluding area under HMDA) for the region as part of State Plan Water and Irrigation sector Education (primary and secondary); Skill development and vocational education; Local Administration (PRIs and ULBs, other than HMDA) Public Health (up to district hospitals excluding medical colleges and specialty health care).
The Chairman of the Regional Council should be an MLA enjoying the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister in the state government. The Council will implement the sub-plan for Telangana Region and for this purpose funds, functions and functionaries will be placed at the disposal of the Council. The Council will be served by its own Secretariat headed by an officer of the level of Additional Chief Secretary in the State who would report to the Chairman of the Council. The total membership of the Council which should essentially be from amongst the MLAs/MLCs should depend on the number of subjects transferred to the Council and its total work load. Some independent subject matter experts can be co-opted as non-voting members of the Council. Likewise the total number of officers and staff to be deputed to work in the Council Secretariat shall be determined by the number of subjects transferred and the work load keeping existing Government norms in view. Any re-appropriation of sub-plan funds would only be done on the recommendation of the Regional Council. Other confidence building measures that need to be initiated include providing adequate political space to Telangana, such as the positions of Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister and other key ministerial portfolios. It would also be necessary that for confidence building, important meetings in Government of India particularly where allocation of development and other funds are discussed such as the ones chaired by the Finance Minister, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Chairman of Finance Commission are attended by both CM and Deputy CM. The Committee is of the considered view that the momentum for a separate Telangana started picked up from the time the decisions incorporated in the Gentlemen’s Agreement were not implemented. With the constitution of the proposed statutory council, these grievances would be taken care of.
The united Andhra option is being suggested by the Committee for continuing the development momentum of the three regions and keeping in mind the national perspective. With firm political and administrative management it should be possible to convey conviction to the people that this option would be in the best interest of all and would provide satisfaction to the maximum number of people in the state.
The Committee expects that the first reaction to this option will be of a total rejection by some political leaders, other groups and organizations and a majority of people from Telangana region, since their long standing demand for a separate Telangana would not have been met. It is possible that the MLAs/MLCs and MPs belonging to different parties in Telangana may be pressurized to resign in order to create a political crisis. It would indeed pose a serious challenge to the leadership to deal with this immediate backlash and the agitations which are likely to continue for a period of time. However, once the empowerment model have been understood by the people it would be possible for the Government to contain and control the agitational activities and take the state towards economic growth and progress. It also goes without saying that this option will receive a near unanimous acceptance by the people of coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and large segments of Hyderabad Metropolis.
The Committee discussed all aspects of this option and while it acknowledges that there will be certain difficulties in its implementation, on balance, it found it the most workable option in the given circumstances and in the best interest of the social and economic welfare of the people of all the three regions. The core issue being one of socio-economic development and good governance, the Committee, keeping the national perspective in mind, is of the considered view that this option stands out as the best way forward. This option, thus, suggests a model that carries forward the national goal of deepening and extending decentralization and of sustaining inclusive growth. It is hoped that the model suggested here would be useful in addressing regional aspirations elsewhere in the country.
In the conclusion the Committee strongly feels that irrespective of the solution and option finally adopted, the Government should examine the recommendations expeditiously for taking further necessary action in a time bound manner. Time bound action is imperative as undue delay or tardiness in approach will only further agitate the minds of the general public. Additionally, timely action will satisfy the people’s emotions and sentiments. The Committee hopes that the examination of its recommendations and implementation of the decisions taken will get due and immediate attention. Needless to emphasize, the process for constituting the proposed Council must be completed expeditiously. It will also be important to add the existing provision of Article 371D (10) to give the Regional Council a legal and statutory force. In case a decision is taken for bifurcation (or trifurcation), the procedure has been clearly prescribed in Article 3 of the Constitution and needs no further elaboration.
In the Epilogue the Committee echoed what the first Home Minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had said “it will be a folly to ignore realities; facts take their revenge if they are not faced squarely and well”.
Now the decision is in the hands of Union Government and its Home Minister shifted the responsibility to leaders of political parties of the state. If nothing short of Telangana is acceptable to majority of Telangana People, then nothing beyond integrated state is agreeable to Seemandhra Leaders. What would happen and which way decision is taken is a million dolor question as of now!
