DEMAND FOR TELANGANA STATE
Genesis, Spread and ContinuanceA Historical Perspective
The people of Telangana are once again restive, reiterating their demand for a separate state. The demand of the people of this region for a separate state is not a new development. It was voiced much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to be raised even thereafter.
The reason for the opposition of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra (metamorphosed to Andhra Pradesh) was fear of neglect, injustice and exploitation in the enlarged state. It had manifested itself several times, including the agitation of 1952 when quite a few young lives were lost. It is referred to as the Non-Mulki Agitation. And the reason for their refusal to continue in the present state is the actual experience of becoming victims of neglect, injustice and exploitation. This resistance, intermittent yet sustained, took and continues to take several forms including the upheaval of 1968-69 when nearly four hundred people, mostly students, were killed in the reign of terror unleashed by the state government of the time.
It should be noted in this context that the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed not only ignoring the wishes of the people of Telangana but also against a categorical recommendation of the States reorganization Commission. Further, it was contrary to the expressed views of the tallest leader of the time, Jawaharlal Nehru, who ridiculed the demand for Visalandhra as an idea bearing a ‘taint of expansionist imperialism’. (Indian Express, 17 October, 1953). The forced merger of Telangana with Andhra to form the present state of Andhra Pradesh on 1st November 1956 was, therefore, an outcome of manipulative politics.
The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) set up by the Government of India in early 50s to examine the question of reorganization of states of the country was not in favour of merging the Telangana region with the then Andhra state. After a very careful examination of the issues involved the SRC recommended:
.. It will be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if, for the present, the Telangana area is constituted into a separate state which may be known as the Hyderabad state, with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by two-thirds majority the legislature of the residuary Hyderabad state expresses itself in favour of such unification.
(SRC Report: Para 386)
The Commission further recommended:
Andhra and Telangana have common interests and we hope these interests will tend to bring the people closer to each other. If, however, our hopes for the development of the environment and conditions congenial to the unification of the areas do not materialize and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallizes itself against the unification of the two states, Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit.
(SRC Report: Para 388)
The Commission came to this conclusion after a dispassionate assessment of feelings of the people of Telangana and the fears entertained by them. Elaborating the reasons for recommending statehood for the Telangana region the Commission observed:
i. One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the Coastal areas...The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately while Telangana itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising Andhras”.
(SRC Report: Para 378)
And
ii. When plans for future development are taken into account, Telangana fears that the claims of this area may not receive adequate consideration in Vishalandhra. ... Telangana, therefore, does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the utilization of the waters of the Krishna and the Godavari.
(SRC Report: Para 377)
Further,
iii. The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of some magnitude ever since it was created; and in comparison with Telangana, the existing Andhra state has a low per capita revenue. Telangana, on the other hand, is much less likely to be faced with financial embarrassment… Whatever the explanation may be … the result of the unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development schemes may be Financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that with which Andhra is now faced. Telangana claims to be progressive and from an administrative point of view, unification, it is contended, is not likely to confer any benefit on this area.
(SRC Report: para 376)
It is also necessary, in this context, to note that the SRC cautioned the nation against the dangers involved in reorganizing the Indian states solely on linguistic considerations. One of the rational criteria recommended by the Commission, while reorganizing the states, was:
…to reject the theory of ‘one language one state’ which is neither justified on grounds of linguistic homogeneity, because there can be more than one state speaking the same language without offending the linguistic principle, nor practicable, since different language groups, including the vast Hindi speaking population of the Indian Union, cannot always be consolidated to form distinct linguistic units”.
(SRC Report: para 163)
These categorical recommendations made by the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), elaborating the rationale underlying its conclusions, and a clearly expressed opinion of the tallest leader of the time – Jawaharlal Nehru – evidently reflected the hopes and aspirations of the people of Telangana. Consequently, there was a strong wave of jubilation among the people of the region.
But, the political leadership of Andhra State could not digest it as it was longing for the formation of Visalandhra; it was almost crestfallen. The primary concern of Andhra leadership was to bail out the infant Andhra State from the deep troubles confronting it from the day one of its separation from the erstwhile composite State of Madras on 01-10-1953. Their eyes were, therefore, on the resource-rich Telangana without which it was impossible for the then Andhra State to sustain itself. The panic that pervaded the Andhra State could be gauged by the reactions and observations of several top-ranking political leaders of the Andhra State and the media, besides the opinions expressed by the Pradesh Congress Committee, the Chamber of Commerce and the deliberations of the Legislative Assembly of the Andhra State. A few of them (translated from Telugu) are reproduced hereunder:
I. Reactions on the Recommendations of the SRC
Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao:
“If the formation of Visalandhra is postponed, it will never happen. It is dangerous to wait for six years. The desire for separate Telangana will be further strengthened, and then they will not agree for Visalandhra. It will be impossible to get two-thirds majority in the Assembly at that time.”
(Andhra Patrika: 02-11-1955)
Kasu Brahmananda Reddy:
“Creating separate Telangana state and then waiting for five years is not a good idea. The necessity of getting two-thirds majority in the assembly is incomprehensible. Why should we wait till the 1961 Elections are over?”
(Andhra Patrika: 02-11-1955)
Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:
“If not now, Visalandhra can never be formed.”
(Andhra Patrika: 04-11-1955)
Vavilala Gopalakrishnayya:
“If Visalandhra is not formed now, it might become impossible later.”
(Andhra Patrika: 06-11-1955)
Kala Venkata Rao:
“If it is feared that the lands in Telangana will be usurped by Andhras, a law can be made to prevent that.”
(Andhra Patrika: 14-11-1955)
Andhra State Congress Committee:
“People of Telangana need not be apprehensive about any troubles or losses if they join Visalandhra. There will not be any laxity in ensuring their development and progress.”
(Andhra Patrika: 03-11-1955)
Comments made in Andhra Patrika:
“There is no answer to the question raised by the leaders of Telangana that if Telangana will not get any additional benefits by joining Visalandhra, why should it join at all?
Benefits to Andhra if Visalandhra is formed:
i) A ready-made, well-developed capital city;
ii) Advantages on social and cultural fronts;
iii) Development of transport and communication facilities; and,
iv) Development of irrigation projects in Krishna and Godavari basins by mobilizing resources from 20 districts of Visalandhra, instead of 8 districts of Andhra.” (Andhra Patrika: 04-11-1955)
Resolutions passed in the Andhra State Assembly:
On 25-11-1955, the then Chief Minister of erstwhile Andhra State, Bezawada Gopala Reddy, introduced a resolution in the State Assembly, which was unanimously approved. The summary of the resolution is as under:
- We deem it our special responsibility to develop the Telangana Region;
- We safeguard the rights of the region in the realms of employment and education proportionate to the population of the region
- We ensure to them a fair share in the fruits of development in all other spheres;
- All the resources that rightfully belong to the Telangana region will be utilized for the benefit of only the people of that region;
- We will be very generous towards them;
- The people of Telangana have not asked us for any of these assurances; and,
- All these assurances are given by all the political parties unanimously in the assembly.
II. Financial Problems of the Andhra State
Andhra Patrika:
The financial condition of the Andhra State is not at all satisfactory; nor is it likely to improve in future. There is no likelihood of paying salaries to the government employees by the end of March (1955).
(Andhra Patrika: 03-12-1954)
There is a huge deficit in the revenue of the State. It is not at all possible to take up any new projects.
(Andhra Patrika: 09-02-1956)
Now there is no possibility of using revenue receipts for developmental works; nor is there any likelihood of it even in the coming five years. Floating loans for developmental works has become impossible.
(Andhra Patrika: 06-07-1955)
Bezawada Gopala Reddy:
“Out of 22 crore rupees of revenue receipts, administrative expenditure alone is eating away 20 crores.”
(Statement in Andhra Assembly: 15-09-1954)
“Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has become a difficult exercise.”
(Andhra Patrika: 01-10-1953)
Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:
“Now we are dragging on with a deficit of 18 crore rupees. We are not in a position to pay salaries to the staff unless the central government comes to our rescue.”
(Statement is Andhra Assembly: 05-11-1953)
“Wherever we go, the farmers are asking for irrigation and electricity facilities. Where can we fetch them from?”
(Statement is Andhra Assembly: 25-02-1954)
“Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very first year of its inception.”
(Statement is Andhra Assembly: 25-01-1956)
M. Bhaktavatsalam (Finance Minister of Madras):
“The sales tax receipts of the Andhra region are very negligible.”
(Statement is Madras Assembly: 31-01-1953)
III. Plight of Andhra State for a Capital City
Kadapa Koti Reddy:
“In the Andhra State there in no proper place to locate even district level offices; where is the question of finding place for locating offices for the capital city of the state?”
(Andhra Patrika: 13-03-1953)
Tanguturi Prakasam:
“All our troubles will be resolved if we get Hyderabad. But how will we get it? We have to think as to how to work for it.”
(Andhra Patrika: 02-06-1953)
Comments made in Andhra Patrika:
- Visakha: Where is a road on which two lorries can safely cross each other?
- Kakinada: Where are the buildings suitable in shape and number required for the capital city of the state?
- Rajahmundry: Doesn’t have the basic requirements.
- Bezawada: There are more people than the available open place.
- Guntur: Just sufficient for the people there.
- Hyderabad : The one and the only way out.
(Andhra Patrika: 07-03-1956)
Y. Suryanarayana Rao:
“We have already spent one crore rupees on the capital city, Kurnool. We are still spending. Even after spending so much, has Kurnool town got a shape suitable for a capital city? Absolutely not.”
(Andhra Patrika: 29-09-1954)
“Andhra government employees are still in Madras as tenants. The officials are worried about providing residential accommodation to them. There is no hope of completing the construction of new buildings for the Secretariat. In addition, the government employees are worried about the educational facilities for their children in Kurnool.”
(Andhra Patrika: 01-09-1954)
Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:
“People are enthusiastically waiting for moving to Hyderabad. Nobody is feeling the pinch of shifting the state’s capital from Kurnool.”
“We will assure the people of Telangana, if necessary, that their positions in the cabinet and jobs in the government will be protected.”
(Comment of Andhra Patrika on Sanjeeva Reddy’s statement: “This very gentleman threatened to remain in erstwhile Madras State itself if the capital city of Andhra State was not located in Rayalaseema.”)
(Andhra Patrika: 09-08-1954)
“We faced many problems in the last two years. There are no facilities for offices. If we have to wait for five more years as recommended by Fazal Ali, Andhra State will have to face innumerable problems.”
(Andhra Patrika: 03-02-1956)
IV. Status of Industrial Development
Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:
“When compared to the other South Indian states, generation of electricity in Andhra is not adequate. Consequently, no industry worth its name could be established.”
(Andhra Patrika: 05-01-1953)
Andhra Chamber of Commerce:
“In Andhra State, there are no industries at all.”
(Andhra Patrika: 20-01-1953)
Bezawada Gopala Reddy:
“There is neither coal nor oil available in Andhra State. Electricity is very expensive.”
(Andhra Patrika: 07-10-1953)
P.V.G.Raju:
“Telangana has registered industrial development. There is scope for further growth.”
(Andhra Patrika: 28-11-1955)
This was the pathetic plight in which the Andhra leadership found itself when the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) categorically recommended to retain Telangana as a separate state. In all their utterances and out bursts, there was not even an iota of mention about common language, common culture or emotional unity of the Telugu people. All their anxiety was to extricate the then Andhra state from its miserable conditions. They were more interested in,
- getting a ready-made, well-developed capital city, free of cost;
- having access to the surplus financial resources of Telangana to meet the chronic deficit of Andhra State; and,
- having control on the abundant natural resources of Telangana, especially river waters, coal, mineral wealth, forest wealth and vast areas of cultivable land.
Thereby, the slogan of linguistic unity and cultural identity became and continues to remain as an empty rhetoric.
The entire scenario was aptly summed up by the then leading Telugu daily newspaper, Andhra Patrika, in its Editorial. The paper dispassionately reflected the fact that the resistance of the people of Telangana had a strong base of bitter experiences. Some excerpts:
“In Telangana, voices are raised against the formation of Visalandhra. These voices vibrated throughout the country during Non-Mulki Agitation. The behaviour of government employees, who went to the Telangana region in the immediate aftermath of Police Action, is responsible for this resistance of the people of Telangana. They still complain that those employees behaved like Mahmood Ghazni. The charge of the people of Telangana is that those employees have plundered their region, and their behaviour smacked of immorality and dishonesty. Therefore, the people of Telangana shudder at the very thought of Visalandhra. The political leaders have not done anything to alleviate the dissatisfaction, agony and anger of people of Telangana. Instead of soliciting the participation of the Telangana leadership, for the formation of Visalandhra, the Andhra leadership is imposing itself on the people of Telangana. The Andhra leaders have not realized, even now, that it is not possible to lure the people of Telangana in favour of Visalandhra by making Hyderabad the capital city of the new state.”
(Andhra Patrika: 04-04-1954)
Yet, paradoxically, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed on 1st November 1956 as an outcome of manipulative politics.
The merger of Telangana with Andhra was, however, not unconditional. It was facilitated by a number of solemn promises made and constitutional safeguards given to the people of the region as a protective umbrella against the possible exploitation in the enlarged state. These promises were made not once. They were made umpteen times (and were also broken umpteen times). Nor the merger of Telangana with Andhra was considered eternal. Again, Jawaharlal Nehru himself compared it with a matrimonial alliance having provision for divorce, if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well. He said:
“An innocent girl (Telangana) is being married to a mischievous boy (Andhra). If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, they can take divorce.”
(The Deccan Chronicle: 06-03-1956)
As feared, nothing could prevent the successive governments from exploiting this region in every sphere – economic, political, administrative, cultural and linguistic.
Promises Broken:
The Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956, which was an assurance of fair play given to the people of Telangana to facilitate the formation of Andhra Pradesh, was scuttled the very same day on which the state was born, by the very same “Gentlemen” who were signatories to the agreement. The result was a massive revolt of the people of the region in 1968-69 demanding separation of Telangana from the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has come to be known as Jai Telangana Movement. The governments of the time in the State and at the Centre then woke up and tried (or pretended) to undo the damage done to the region.
The first step taken in that direction was the All Party Accord of January 1969 arrived at a meeting of the leaders of all the political parties in the State, convened by the then Chief Minister Brahmananda Reddy. But it was shelved in less than six months time.
Thereafter, a couple of packages were announced by the Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi, styled as Eight Point Formula and Five Point Formula. When the modalities of giving effect to these packages were being worked out, the Supreme Court of India gave a historic judgment validating, what were then known as, Mulki Rules. This judgment upheld the rule of reserving employment and educational opportunities available in Telangana exclusively for the residents of this region. But the political elite of Andhra region did not digest these corrective measures. The result was another agitation for a separate state, and this time for a separate Andhra state. It is referred to as Jai Andhra Movement. The leaders of Jai Andhra Movement demanded either scrapping of all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana including the judgment of Supreme Court of India on the validity of Mulki Rules, or bifurcating Andhra Pradesh into Andhra and Telangana states. It may not be out of place to recall that Venkaiah Naidu and Chandrababu Naidu, among others, were in the forefront of Jai Andhra Movement.
The Government of India yielded to the pressure of political might and money power of the majority region and nullified, by an act of Parliament, almost all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana including the annulment of judgment of the highest judicial authority of the country on Mulki Rules.
As an alternative, the so-called Six Point Formula, a diluted form of safeguards, was foisted on the people. Even this formula has been, and continues to be, violated with impunity, robbing the people of Telangana of whatever little was left in the name of safeguards.
All these exercises ultimately turned out to be futile as they were, at best, attempts to treat the symptoms rather than the malady. Consequently, the exploitation of the region and its people continued (and still continues) unabated under the patronage of political leadership, irrespective of the region it hailed from and irrespective of the party it belonged to. In this process the so called concept of Telugu Brotherhood has become irrelevant, placing the people of Telangana in an extremely unenviable position.
Deprived of their legitimate share in the fruits of development, marginalized in the political process and administrative setup, belittled on the cultural and linguistic fronts they are virtually reduced to the status of second-rate citizens in their own homeland.
Therefore, the demand for a separate state continues to persist.
Telangana on UPA Agenda (2004)
When the UPA Government came to power at the national level after the general elections held in 2004, the following commitment was made in its Common Minimum Programme (CMP) regarding the formation of Telangana State:
The demand for formation of Telangana State to be considered at an appropriate time after consultations and consensus.
It had the approval of all the 13 constituent parties of the UPA Government, besides the four parties of the Left Front, supporting the Government from outside.
This item was mentioned by the President of India in his address to the joint session of Parliament held on 7th June 2004.
In order to initiate the follow-up action for arriving at consensus in this regard, a sub-committee of the UPA was constituted under the Chairmanship of Pranab Mukerjee. Consequently, Pranab Mukherjee wrote letters to all the political parties having representation in the Parliament, seeking their opinion on the formation of Telangana State. The responses received from different political parties clearly indicate an overwhelming support for the formation of Telangana State. A brief analysis is given hereunder:
Parties of the UPA Government:
Thirteen Parties constituted the UPA Government when it came to power. They were: Congress Party, RJD, DMK, NCP, PMK, JMM, TRS, Lok Janshakthi Party, MDMK, Republican Party of India, J&K People’s Democratic Party, Indian Union Muslim League and Kerala Congress. Out of them, 11 parties gave letters supporting the formation of Telangana State. The DMK extended its support orally, at the official meeting of the UPA held in August 2006. The Congress maintained that as the entire exercise was being carried on at its instance, a formal letter from its side was not necessary.
Friendly Parties:
There were 11 parties, besides one independent member, supporting the UPA Government from outside. They were: CPI(M), CPI, RSP, Forward Block, Janata Dal (S), Rashtriya Lok Dal, Sikkim Democratic Front, Samajwadi Party, BSP, SJP (R), and MIM. Out them, seven parties, besides one independent member, gave letters in support of Telangana State. They were: BSP, CPI, Forward Block, Rashtriya Lok Dal, Janata Dal(S), Sikkim Democratic Front, SJP(R). The stand taken by the Samajwadi Party is not known. The CPI (M) maintained that as a matter of principle, it was against the disintegration of linguistic states. But, it stated that it would not come in the way of formation of Telangana State. The Party made it abundantly clear at a meeting held on 22nd August 2006, with the representatives of Congress High Command.
Opposition Parties:
There were 14 parties in the opposition, besides 3 independents. They were: BJP, Shiv Sena, BJD., Janata Dal (U), Shiromani Akali Dal, TDP, AITC, AGP, National Conference, Indian Federal Democratic Party, Mizoram National Front, Nagaland People’s Front, Nati0nal Loktantrik Party and Bharatiya NavShakti Party. Out of them, 8 parties gave their consent supporting the formation of Telangana State. They were: BJP, TDP Shiromani Akali Dal, JD (U), Indian National Democratic Party, Mizoram National Front, Nagaland People’s Front and Bharatiya Navshakti Party. Further, Shiv Sena, BJD, AGP, National Conference, besides 3 independents, orally promised to support the proposal.
Others:
All the five former Prime Ministers responded favourably on this score. While V.P. Singh (now late) and I.K. Gujral wrote in their personal capacity, H .D. Deve Gouda and Chandra Shekhar (now late) wrote on behalf of the parties they represented. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in any case a party to the BJP’s commitment.
In addition, two more parties, having representation only in the Rajya Sabha, also extended their support. They were: Swatantra Bharat Paksha and Republican Party of India (G).
It is abundantly clear that the consensus arrived at, in favour of formation of Telangana State was not only very wide but was also overwhelming. If the UPA does not consider it as consensus, then what else could it be, and what more is it searching for?
The UPA Government did not honour its commitment made to the people of Telangana. Consequently, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) had to withdraw from the UPA.
2009 General Elections and Thereafter:
During the 2009 general elections the Congress Party did not forge any alliance with the TRS; but it was categorical in assuring the people of Telangana that it was committed to the formation of Telangana State and that it was the only national party capable of fulfilling the promise. Further, most of the parties in the State, i.e., TDP, BJP, CPI and Prajarajyam also were very categorical in supporting the proposal for the formation of Telangana State. The TRS in any way has only one point programme. The MIM, though silent, was not against the proposal. The CPI (M) maintained that it would not come in the way if the state was formed. This commitment made by almost all the political parties in the State made the people of Telangana to believe that the formation of Telangana State was a certainty, no matter which party or whichever combination of parties came to power. As a result, all these parties put together, swept the poll overwhelmingly. Therefore, the number of seats won by TRS ceased to be the sole criterion for the formation of the Telangana State. Yet, the governments in the State as well as the Centre tried to distort the electoral verdict. Under these circumstances K. Chandrasekhar Rao had to undertake a fast unto death from 29th November 2009, in the Gandhian and democratic mode of protest.
This mode of protest evoked a massive response from the nook and corner of Telangana region. In order to find a solution, the Government of India asked the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to obtain the opinion of the Congress Legislature Party on the one hand and of all the political parties of the State on the other. The Chief Minister went through this exercise on 7th December 2009. The Congress Legislature Party unanimously resolved to authorise the Congress High Command in the matter and assured to abide by any decision taken by it. At the All Party Meeting convened the same day, all the major political parties promised to support the proposal for the formation of Telangana State and accused the Congress Party and the State Government for delaying the process. These parties include TDP, BJP, PRP, CPI, and naturally TRS. The MIM wanted a couple of days time to make its stand clear. The one member Loksatta Party was ambivalent. The CPI (M) reiterated its known stand. The minutes of these meetings were sent to the Government of India by the Chief Minister. There was also a prolonged debate in both the houses of Parliament underscoring the need and desirability of resolving the issue immediately.
In this backdrop, on 9th December 2009, the Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, announced, on behalf of Government of India, that the process of formation of Telangana State would be initiated and an appropriate resolution would be moved in the State Assembly. He also requested Chandrasekhar Rao to give up his fast unto death. Consequently, Rao gave up his fast amidst a wave of jubilation throughout Telangana.
But, surprisingly, and also shockingly, the leaders of Congress Party, TDP and PRP, hailing from the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions went back on their commitment made in the official meetings to support the formation of Telangana State. Some of them who are known for their vested interests in the real estate business and investments in the corporate sector instigated openly the students and the youth of the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to oppose the proposal for the formation of Telangana State. There was a large scale violence and massive destruction of property in those regions. The role played by even some of the members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Congress Party is well known. During that period there was total peace and tranquility in the Telangana region. In that scenario the Union Home Minister made another statement on 23rd December 2009 that the Government of India would initiate a wide range of consultations before initiating the process of the formation of Telangana State. This had naturally created an impression that the issue of formation of Telangana State was once again put in the cold storage. And naturally there was another wave of protest and agitation.
In this context it is to be noted that in dealing with identical situations of unrest in two different regions of the State, the State Government and the law and order machinery behaved differently. It was very lenient and considerate in dealing with situation in the Andhra and Rayalaseema areas, while it has been, and continues to be, ruthless and repressive in dealing with an identical situation in the Telangana region. Even the commitment made by the Home Minister of India regarding the withdrawal of cases registered against the Telangana activists from 29th of November onwards is yet to be honoured by the State Government.
Under these circumstances, the latest clarification given by the Union Home Minister on 31st December 2009 has rekindled some hope among the people of Telangana. Yet, the people continue to have quite a few apprehensions. Therefore, it has become inevitable to complete the process of formation of Telangana State without any further loss of time.
Now it is abundantly clear that all the sections of society in the two regions are vertically divided. Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, Members of Legislative Council, Ministers and Representatives of Local Bodies of all the parties are divided into two camps. It should be realised that the continuance of unified State of Andhra Pradesh has become untenable. It will be possible only if people of both the regions agree to it willingly. The unity cannot be imposed unilaterally.
What is to be understood is that the formation of Telangana State means restoration of status quo ante as it existed on 31st October 1956. The geographical boundaries and the territorial jurisdiction of the two regions were clearly demarcated and defined in the documents prepared at the time of merger of Telangana with Andhra. No new exercise is required on this score.
No comments:
Post a Comment