TRS -SKC...ABT INCOME n EXPENDITURE

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

Telangana is a victim of plunder of its financial resources in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh.

On the eve of formation of Andhra Pradesh itself, Telangana was a surplus area with regard to its Revenue Income and Expenditure, where as Andhra was a deficit state.

Underscoring the dangers involved in the amalgamation of a surplus area with a deficit state, the States’ Reorganization Commission recommended continuance of Telangana as a separate state.

Yet, the amalgamation took place because of the manipulative politics; but it was not unconditional.

One of the conditions of merger of Telangana with Andhra was not to allow diversion of Telangana’s surplus income for the benefit of the other region. But this condition, like several others, was observed more in its breach all through.

Consequently, Telangana is lagging behind the other region in all spheres of its development.

Whenever the question of formation of Telangana State comes up for discussion – and also consideration – attempts are deliberately made to create an impression that Telangana may not be a viable state. It is a travesty of truth. The fact is that the financial viability of the very state of Andhra Pradesh is dependent on the contribution of Telangana to the State’s exchequer. It might sound incredible, yet it is an indisputable reality. Therefore, a glance at the pages of the past history, juxtaposing it with the present day realities, becomes necessary.

The Backdrop:

When the idea of forming the erstwhile Andhra state, segregating the Andhra area from the then composite state of Madras, was mooted, quite a few doubts were raised about the viability of that state. Dr. BR Ambedkar himself observed:

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State? Mr. Justice Wanchoo had very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. Is it possible for the proposed Andhra state to reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in expenditure? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going to take the responsibility of meeting this deficit? If so, will this responsibility be continued to the proposed Andhra state or will it be extended to all similar cases? These are questions which are to be considered.

Elaborating further the inadequacies of the proposed Andhra state and the difficulties it was bound to face, Dr. Ambedkar said:

“Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it”.

Source: Writings and Speeches of Dr. BR Ambedkar (Vol)

Yet, Andhra State was formed on 1^st October 1953 with Kurnool town as the capital. On the eve of formation of the state a debate took place in the Madras Assembly about, among other things, the financial position of the proposed Andhra state. Participating in the debate, M. Bhaktavatsalam, the then Finance Minister of the erstwhile composite state of Madras made the following statement on the floor of the Assembly on 13 March 1953:

The sales tax receipts of the Andhra region are very negligible:

As expected and explicitly expressed, the financial troubles for the newly formed Andhra state started right from the day of its inception! It is discernible from the statements made by panic-stricken political functionaries of the state government and the analyses made in the media. To cite a few examples:

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, the then Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra state, expressed his agony about the financial problems of the state on the floor of the State Assembly as under:

Wherever we go, the farmers are asking for irrigation and electricity facilities. Where can we fetch them from? (25-02-1954)

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. (05-11-1953)

Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very first year of its inception. (25-01-1956)

Bezawada Gopala Reddy, the then Chief Minister of the Andhra state, too expressed anxiety over the financial plight of the new state in the following words:

Out of 22 crore rupees of revenue receipts, administrative expenditure alone is eating away 20 crores. (Andhra Assembly 15-09-1954)

He expressed similar concern outside the assembly also:

Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has become a difficult exercise.

(Andhra Patrika: 01-10-1953)

On the ongoing debate about the innumerable problems confronting the then Andhra state, a reputed Telugu daily of those times, Andhra Patrika, made these comments:

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). ...

(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.

(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.

(06-07-1955)

It was at that time the Government of India had set up the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in order to examine the question of reorganising the Indian states and make recommendations there for. The SRC, in its report, categorically and unequivocally recommended retention of Telangana as a separate state. In this context the SRC elaborately listed out the reasons for making this recommendation. With regard to the financial soundness of the Telangana region vis-à-vis the chronic financial deficit and uncertainty of the then Andhra state, the SRC made the following observation:

The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of some magnitude ever since it was created; and in comparison with Telan- gana, the existing Andhra state has 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. (Para 376)

Such was the pathetic plight of the erstwhile Andhra state! It was a real hand to mouth struggle in the areas of finance and development. For coming out of such a mess, all hopes of Andhra leaders were pinned down on the formation of Visalandhra (the present Andhra Pradesh). But the SRC was not in favour of unsettling the financial stability of Telangana for bailing out the then Andhra state from its chronic financial instability.

A Conditional Merger:

Then, the Andhra leadership indulged in lobbying and manipulative politics. Innumerable promises of protecting the interests of Telangana were made in the event of its merger with the Andhra state. The national leadership succumbed to the pressure of the Andhra leaders and gave green signal for the merger of surplus Telangana with the deficit Andhra, subject to providing several statutory safeguards to the people of Telangana. It was made abundantly clear that the merger was neither unconditional nor would it be eternal. The political leaders of Telangana (not the people) trusted the national leadership and entered into an agreement which has come to be known as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. One of the important clauses of that Agreement was to prohibit the diversion of Telangana revenue surpluses to meet the deficit of Andhra region. The relevant clause reads as follows:

The expenditure of the Central and General Administration of the State should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of income from Telangana should be reserved for expenditure on the development of Telangana area.

Violation of Conditions:

But the violation of this clause, along with several other clauses of the Gentlemen’s Agreement, started from the very first day of the formation of Andhra Pradesh by the very same gentlemen who inked their signatures on the Agreement. These violations included, among other, the diversion of the revenue surpluses of Telangana to meet the deficit of Andhra region. Regarding the quantum of Telangana revenues diverted to the Andhra area, it was established by the enquiries instituted by the Government of India and the State Government that between 1.11.1956 (i.e. the day of formation of the State) and 31.03.1957, spanning a period of just five months, more than 41% of the Telangana revenue income was diverted to the Andhra region (See Table II) to meet its insurmountable financial problems. And this illegal and unethical diversion did not stop with those five months; it continued unabated. This became one of the principal reasons for the revolt of people of Telangana in 1968-69 and reiteration of their demand for separation of Telangana from the forced merger with Andhra.

Telangana Surpluses – Pre 1969 Scenario:

Consequently, the governments of the time at the Centre and in the State were compelled to assess the quantum of Telangana surpluses diverted to Andhra region for the period from 01.11.1956 to 31.03.1968. The first exercise on this count was done by K. Lalit, an Officer on Special Duty, deputed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (referred to as Lalit Committee). Subsequently, the Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi, constituted a high power committee under the chairmanship of Vashishth Bhargava, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India (referred to as Bhargava Committee) to have a further look into the matter. Both the committees came to more or less the same conclusions. With some variations in computing the figures here and there, both the committees clearly established that the surplus revenues of Telangana were transferred constantly and continuously to meet the revenue deficit of Andhra area. A glance at the figures culled out from the reports of these two committees gives an idea as to the extent of damage done to Telangana region in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh. It could be seen in the following two tables:

Table - I
Revenue Receipts of Andhra and Telangana from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968
(Rs. In Lakhs)
S.No.	Year	Andhra	% of Total	Telangana	% of Total	Total	% of Total
1	1956 - 57	1,450.01	57.00	1,093.88	43.00	2,543.89	100
2	1957 - 58	3,987.84	63.98	2,244.79	36.02	6,232.63	100
3	1958 - 59	4,085.05	60.50	2,667.18	39.50	6,752.23	100
4	1959 - 60	4,743.30	57.88	3,451.10	42.12	8,194.40	100
5	1960 - 61	5,176.53	60.69	3,352.36	39.31	8,528.89	100
6	1961 - 62	4,766.00	55.57	3,810.83	44.43	8,576.83	100
7	1962 - 63	6,027.51	57.22	4,506.55	42.78	10,534.06	100
8	1963 - 64	7,567.08	59.78	5,091.79	40.22	12,658.87	100
9	1964 - 65	7,780.57	59.14	5,375.91	40.86	13,156.48	100
10	1965 - 66	7,769.37	56.07	6,087.29	43.93	13,856.66	100
11	1966 - 67	8,681.33	55.21	7,044.00	44.79	15,725.33	100
12	1967 - 68	9,866.16	59.48	6,720.47	40.52	16,586.63	100
Total		71,900.75	58.29	51,446.15	41.71	123,346.90	100

Source : Report on the Quantum of Telangana Surpluses (Kumar Lalith Report) Govt. of A.P.,1969

It is clear that the contribution of Telangana to the State’s Revenue receipts was, on an average, 41.71% of the total receipts during the initial 12-year period of State’s existence, as against 58.29% of the other region. It should be remembered that the population of Telangana during that period was around 35% of total population of the State, while that of Andhra was about 65%. It means that the per capita tax effort was higher in Telangana than in Andhra.

Table - II

Transfer of Telangana Surplus Revenue Income to Andhra from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968 (Rs. In Lakhs)
			(Rs. In lakhs)
Year	Receipts	Expenditure	Surplus Transferred	% of Revenue Transferred
			to Andhra	to Andhra
1956 -57	1,093.88	644.58	449.30	41.07
1957- 58	2,244.79	1,896.67	348.12	15.51
1958- 59	2,667.18	2,242.69	424.49	15.92
1959- 60	3,451.10	2,598.16	852.94	24.72
1960- 61	3,352.36	3,000.34	352.02	10.50
1961- 62	3,810.83	3,381.37	429.46	11.27
1962- 63	4,506.55	3,837.69	668.86	14.84
1963- 64	5,091.79	4,228.95	862.84	16.95
1964- 65	5,375.91	4,764.70	611.21	11.37
1965- 66	6,087.29	5,555.39	531.90	8.74
1966- 67	7,044.00	6,376.45	667.55	9.48
1967- 68	6,720.47	6,526.31	194.16	2.89
Total	51,446.15	45,053.30	6,392.85	12.43

Source : Report on the Quantum of Telangana Surpluses (Kumar Lalith Report) Govt. of A.P., 1969

It is also clear that the diversion of Telangana revenue income to the Andhra region went on throughout that period, unabated. During the very first year and itself, it was a staggering 41.07% of Telengana revenues. During 1956-57 1967-68 it was, on an average, 12.43% .

The condition stipulated in the Gentlemen’s Agreement was essentially related to the Revenue Income and Revenue Expenditure and the resultant Revenue Surplus or Deficit. It was not very much relevant to the Development Expenditure. According to the norms laid down by the Planning Commission and the Government of India, the major determinants of allocation for development expenditure are: population, geographical area, per capita tax effort and per capita income. At that point of time the population of Telangana was more than 35% of the State’s population. The per capita tax effort of Telangana was higher and the per capita income was lower, as compared to the Andhra region. On all these counts the Telangana region was entitled to around 40% percent of the allocation out of the total development expenditure of the State for that period. But, while computing the Telangana surpluses vis-à-vis the development expenditure, it was strangely restricted to 33.3% of the total expenditure. It was not even proportionate to the population of the region; leave alone the area’s higher per capita tax effort and lower per capita income. As a result, the quantum of Telangana surpluses determined was far lower than what the region was legitimately entitled to.

Whatever be the figures arrived at, the indisputable fact underscored by Lalit and Bhargava Committees was the blatant and constant diversion of Telangana income to the Andhra region violating all the norms laid down, all the safeguards given and all the agreements arrived at as pre conditions for the merger of Telangana with Andhra. Thereby the colossal recurring damage caused to the development of Telangana cannot be easily assessed. It was aptly summed by the Bhargava Committee in the following words:

If the amounts of surplus found which remained unspent in any year had actually been spent in that very year or in the year succeeding, the amount of development which could have been brought about by such amount could have been much larger than would be possible on 31^st March 1968 or thereafter. The obvious reason is that there has been a continuous rise in the price level. The result of this rise in prices is that, for doing the same amount of development work which could have been done earlier, the amount that will have to be spent after 31^st march 1968 would be very much larger… If these amounts had been spent in those very years when they were available for development, the prompt execution of the works of development would have given its own return and that return would have further accelerated the pace of development.

(Report of the Bhargava Committee)

These observations of the Bhargava Committee get reflected in various spheres of development that has taken place in the Andhra region at the expense of the Telangana region. For instance:

i) By the time the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed, two major irrigation projects of Andhra area namely, the Godavari barrage at Dhavaleswaram and the Krishna barrage at Vijayawada were dilapidated and needed immediate renovation and reconstruction. The then Andhra state was totally bankrupt and was completely helpless to take up those works. The merger of Telangana became a boon for the Andhra region. The surplus revenues of Telangana came handy to the Andhra bosses of the new state. These two projects which were almost dead were not only reconstructed but the ayacut was also substantially increased. These two projects put together now irrigate more than 25 lakh acres in karif and nearly half of it in rabi.

ii) Had those surpluses of Telangana region been spent on the Sriram Sagar Project, at least half of the Telangana region would have become prosperous – perhaps more than the now affluent delta region. The construction of Sriram Sagar Project was deliberately kept in abeyance to facilitate the diversion of Telangana surplus revenues to the Andhra region. It is now more than four decades that the work on this project was initiated; but not even half of it is completed. Out of 20 lakh acres of ayacut proposed to be brought under this project, not even 5 lakh acres get irrigation facilities, that too for one crop, even to this day.

Will the powers that be able to assess the recurring and cumulative loss caused to Telangana on this score?

Who will be able to determine the quantum of compensation and who will pay it to undo the colossal damage done to the region and its people?

Telangana Surpluses – The Post 1969 Scenario:

The experience of the people of Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh was so bitter, during the initial twelve year period itself. In order to prevent the recurrence of similar experience regarding the income and expenditure of the Telangana region, it was reiterated that all the details of the income and expenditure for Andhra and Telangana regions should be shown separately in the annual budget of the State. It was followed for a couple of years; but was given up abruptly without any valid reasons. As a result, the Andhra bosses got a free hand to do anything to deprive Telangana of its rightful share in the financial allocations. And everything went on unnoticed, and is still going on clandestinely. It has not stopped at that. On the contrary, the Andhra leadership has been arguing, day-in and day-out, that the Telangana region is getting a lion’s share in the financial allocations while the other regions are foregoing their rightful share. Ironically, and also sadly, the Telangana leadership never dared to question this untenable claim of the Andhra leadership; obviously for its own survival. As a result, the damage caused today to the Telangana region from 1970 onwards is much more than the damage done during the preceding spell of 12 to 14 years. The fact, even to this day, is that the financial resources which legitimately belong to Telangana are being diverted for the development of other regions. In the absence of related details in the budget statements and lack of transparency in the functioning of the State Government, one has to decipher the details from a variety of other documents.

Rosaiah’s Statement – An Analysis:

An analysis on this count is made on the basis of the statement made by K. Rosaiah on the floor of the State Assembly in March 2007. It clearly establishes the fact that the revenue income of Telangana is more than that of the other regions put together; and, the expenditure incurred in this region is far less than its income. Rosaiah tried to camouflage the issue, yet he could not cover up the stark realities.

The Details:

Five members of the AP Legislative Assembly asked the then Finance Minister, K. Rosaiah, to furnish the region-wise details of revenue income and expenditure for a period of three years. In reply to this question the Finance Minister placed details on the table of the House, during its Budget Session in March 2007. They could be seen in Tables III and IV:

Table-III

a) Revenue:

	Region	Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
		2003-04	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07(Jan/07)
1.	Andhra	2796	3494	3702	3690
2.	Rayalaseema	730	867	1004	987
3.	Telangana	5565	4725	5935	6093
4.	Head quarters	5095	8311	9708	9319
	Total	14186	17397	20349	20089
5.	Others	3220	3283	4055	4980
6.	Grand Total	17406	20680	24404	25069

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session – 9

Table-IV

(b) Expenditure:

S.No	Region	Year-Wise Plan Expenditure (Rupees in Crores)
		2003-04	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07(Jan/07)
1.	Andhra	3848	3799	4532	3489
2.	Rayalaseema	2150	2411	2684	2881
3.	Telangana	5158	5546	711	5987
4.	Head Quarters	706	893	976	682
	Total	11862	12649	15303	13039

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session - 9

The statement made by K. Rosaiah Is analysed in two parts: one pertains to Revenue Income and the other to Expenditure.

Revenue Income:

The region-wise break up given by K. Rosaiah is not only intriguing but is also inexplicable. It is not clear as to on what basis and with what authority he had segregated headquarters from the rest of the Telangana region. It goes contrary to the established policy of the State Government contained in Letter No 7193/68-1 dated 03.02.1969 of the Finance Secretary of the State Government which inter alia elaborated the principles of computing the income of different regions. The relevant extract of the Letter says:

The receipts accruing in the respective areas will be credited to those regions while the receipts at the headquarters will be credited to the Telangana region except in cases where they specifically relate to Andhra region.

Similarly the Finance Minister had not given the region-wise breakup of the receipts under the Head ‘Others’. These two are evidently aimed at artificially trimming the revenue income of Telangana. In spite of this jugglery, he could not hide the fact that even if the income of the Headquarters is not taken into account, revenue receipts of Telangana continue to be far higher than the revenue receipts of Andhra and Rayalaseema regions put together. It could be clearly seen in the following Tables:

Table – V Region wise Brake up of Revenue Income Excluding Hyderabad
	S. No	Region	Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
			2003-04	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07(Jan/07)
	1.	Andhra	2796 (30.75%)	3494 (38.45%)	3702 (34.78%)	3690 (34.26%)
	2.	Rayalaseema	730 (8.02%)	867 (9.54%)	1004 (9.43%)	987 (9.16%)
		Total of Andhra & Rayalaseema	3526 (38.77%)	4361 (47.99%)	4706 (44.21%)	4677 (43.42%)
	3.	Telangana	5565(61.23%)	4725 (52.01%)	5935 (55.79%)	6093 (56.58%)
		Total of Regions	9091(100%)	9086(100%)	10641(100%)	10770(100%)

By furnishing these figures, K. Rosaiah had admitted that even without reckoning the revenue receipts of the Headquarters, Telangana’s contribution to the State’s revenues is far higher when compared to the contribution of the other two regions, put together or separately as detailed below:

Telangana between 61.23% and 52.01%

Andhra between 38.45% and 30.75%

Rayalaseema between 09.54% and 8.02%

Andhra & Rayalaseema between 47.99% and 38.77%

What more evidence is required to prove that the contribution of Telangana to the State’s Revenues is always higher than the other two regions, even after showing the income of the Headquarters separately?

If the incomes of the Headquarters and Telangana are taken together, and rightly so, the contribution of Telangana on one hand, and Andhra and Rayalaseema put together on the other, the position would be as shown in Table VI:

Table – VI Region wise Brake up of Revenue Income Including Hyderabad
S. No	Region	Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
		2003-04	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07 (Jan/07)
1.	Total of Andhra & Rayalaseema	3526 (24.05%)	4361 (25.06%)	4706 (23.12%)	4677 (23.28%)
2.	Total of Telangana with Head Quarters	10660 (75.95%)	13036 (74.94%)	15643 (76.88%)	15412 (76.72%)
	Total of AP	14186(100%)	17397(100%)	20349(100%)	20089(100%)

Therefore, the contributions of two principle regions of the State to the State’s revenues are as under:

Telangana between 76.88% and 74.94%

Andhra & Rayalaseema between 25.06% and 23.12%

If the region-wise details of Receipts under the Head ‘Others’ also are provided, the contribution of Telangana is bound to go still further up.

a) Plan Expenditure:

With regard to expenditure the information given by Rosaiah consists of only Plan Expenditure and not Revenue Expenditure. The purpose of not revealing the details of Revenue Expenditure is, obviously to hide the fact of overspending in Andhra region more than its Revenue Income permits and also to conceal the fact of under spending in Telangana, in spite of a higher level of Revenue Receipts in the region. In the absence of details of Revenue Expenditure, an assessment is made about the quantum of Plan Expenditure vis-à-vis the levels of Revenue Income. It could be seen in Table VII:

b) Expenditure:

S. No.	Region	Revenue Income	Plan Expenditure	Excess(+) or Shortfall(-) of 4 over 3
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
1.	Andhra	13,682	15,668	1,986(+)
2.	Rayalaseema	3,588	10,126	6,538(+)
3.	Telangana	22,318	17,402	4,916(-)
4.	Head Quarters	32,433	3,257	29,176(-)
	Total	72,021	52,853	19,168(-)

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session – 9

The points to be noted here are:

i. During the period chosen by Rosaiah, Plan Expenditure in Andhra and Rayalaseema is far in excess of the Revenue Income of those regions.

Where that money has come from?

ii. During the same period, the Plan Expenditure in Telangana is far less than what the Revenue Income of the region facilitates.

Where that money has gone?

iii. The Plan Expenditure in the Headquarters, for the said period is far, far below its Revenue Income.

What has happened to that huge component of Revenue Income? In which region and for what purpose it was spent?

Answers to these questions will show as to which region is denied of its rightful share and which region is the beneficiary.

What about the Income from the sale of Telangana lands?

Another important factor which does not figure in the statement of Rosaiah is the income, running into several thousands of crores of rupees, accruing through the indiscriminate sale of Telangana lands, especially in and around the city of Hyderabad. It is the common knowledge that a substantial part of these receipts was spent, and also is being spent on the development projects in the other regions.

Telangana’s Contribution to State’s Exchequer:

In this context the primary reasons for higher contributions of Telangana to the revenue income of the State need to be perused.

The Sales Tax receipts and Excise Collections constitute a substantial part (around 80%) of the State’s revenues; and the Telangana region is the major contributor to both these heads. To substantiate this position, region-wise details pertaining to Sales Tax receipts and Excise Collections for a few years, as an example, are furnished in Table VIII:

Table – VIII

Region-Wise Breakup of Sales Tax Collections

S.No	Region	Collection	Percent of Total
1 2	Andhra & Rayalaseema Telangana	2000-01 (Rs in Lakhs) 139,843.33 433,796.29	24.38% 75.62%
3.	AP Total	573,639.62	100%
1. 2.	Andhra & Rayalaseema Telangana	2003-04 (Rs in Lakhs) 179,211.75 583,902.25	23.48% 76.52%
3.	AP Total	763,114.00	100%
1. 2.	Andhra & Rayalaseema Telangana	2005-06 (Rs in crores) 206,983.75 646,370.94	24.26% 75.74%
3.	AP Total	853,354.69	100%

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of AP; Statistical Abstracts of the Years concerned

Table – IX

Excise Collections in Telangana vis-à-vis the Total Collections in the State

(Rs. In Crores)

S.No	Year	Total Collections (AP)	Collections in Telangana	% Of Telangana
1 2. 3.	2008-09 2007-08 2005-06	5753.43 4056.86 3436.63	4077.45 2966.13 2460.63	70.86% 73.11% 71.6%

Source: Office of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of AP.

It is clear that the Sales Tax Receipts and Excise Collections together contribute nearly 80% of the State’s own tax revenues. State’s own taxes include, besides Sales Tax and Excise Collections, Taxes on Motor Vehicles, Stamps and Registration. Land Revenue, Professional Tax, Electricity Duty, NALA etc. This aspect is amplified in the following Table:

Table –X

Share of Sales Tax and Excise Collections in the Total Revenue from State’s Own Taxes

(Rs. In Crores)

S.No	Year	Total Collections (AP)	Share of ST & Excise	% Of Total Tax Revenue
1 2. 3.	2008-09 2007-08 2006-07	33358 28794 23926	27605 23067 18904	82.75% 80.11% 79.01%

Source: Socioeconomic Survey, 2009-10; Planning Department, Govt. of AP

It is evident that the revenues from other taxes of the State Government constitute only a minor part of the total revenue of the State’s Taxes.

In addition to the State’s own tax and the non-tax revenues, there will be a flow of resources from the Central Government. These flows include, among others, devolution of share in the central taxes and grants based on the recommendations of the Finance Commission, grants and assistance from the Planning Commission, funds for externally aided and centrally sponsored schemes.

While determining the state’s share in central taxes and grants-in-aid, the Finance Commission gives sufficient weightage to the backward regions within the state. Therefore, Telangana is entitled to a higher share in these revenues as well.

All these factors clearly establish that around ¾ th of Revenue income from the State’s own tax revenues and non-tax resources is contributed by the Telangana region. Regarding the share of Telangana in the flow of resources from the Central Government, it cannot be in any case less than 50% if the norms laid down by the Finance Commission and Planning Commission are scrupulously adhered to. The sum and substance of this entire scenario is that the contribution of Telangana to the State’s exchequer is more than the contribution of Andhra and Rayalaseema put together.

Expenditure on Telangana:

But the vital question to be answered is as to what proportion of these resources is spent for the Telangana region? There was a possibility of assessing this aspect until early 1970s because of the condition to show the details of region-wise income and expenditure, separately, in the annual budgets of the State. The State Government abruptly and arbitrarily abandoned this practice for the reasons that are so obvious. Therefore, a different methodology needs to be adopted to make an assessment.

Under the alternative method, evaluation can be made not necessarily on the basis of actual expenditure incurred, but also on the basis of targets achieved in physical terms. For instance, in the field of canal irrigation it could be a region-wise breakup of the extent of area getting irrigation facilities through that canal system under major and minor irrigation projects built and maintained by the Government. By any logic the ratios of land under canal irrigation between the regions will also reflect the ratios of expenditure as well. Similarly, the proportion of expenditure can be evaluated by the number of units on which the government spends, such as the number of teachers working in the institutions managed and aided by the government, the number of students studying or number of seats available in government funded educational institutions. In some cases figures relating to actual expenditure incurred can be culled out from the orders of the government issued periodically or sporadically to release funds for various activities of the government.

By adopting this methodology an assessment is made to arrive at the ratios of expenditure between Andhra and Telangana regions in certain vital spheres of State’s activity. In this context it is to be kept in view that the population of Telangana is about 41% of the State’s total population. Geographically it covers 41.67 % of the total area of the State. The region’s contribution to the State’s exchequer is substantially more than that of the other regions.

a) Canal Irrigation:

The Directorate of Economics and Statistics publishes, every year, the details regarding the area irrigated by different sources. Canal Irrigation is a major segment and the entire expenditure of constructing major and medium irrigation projects together with the canals and also their maintenance is borne by the government. Spending on irrigation projects is always a major component of the government’s expenditure. It is needless to say that distributive justice among the regions should be ensured in this regard. But the facts and figures published by the Government itself are appalling. During the year 2007-08 a total of 16, 10,000 hectares were irrigated under canal system. Out of this the area irrigated in Telangana was 2, 22,000 hectares, i.e., a mere 13.79%. Even during the best of times, it was, at the most, 18%.

Does it not mean that out of the total expenditure incurred on major and medium irrigation projects, Telangana accounts for less than 1/5 ^th of it?

b) Social Welfare:

The government spends huge amounts on social welfare programmes. Most of these programmes are regulated through the white ration cards issued to the people who are below the poverty line. The schemes include provision of subsidized rice, kerosene, sugar, housing, pensions, medicare (Aarogyasri) and so on. The white ration card has thereby become an important identification card for availing of the benefit of these schemes. Now the question is: What should be the number of cards issued in a region? It should naturally be related to the population of the area and poverty levels therein. The population of Telangana area is about 41%. Therefore the number of white ration cards issued in the region should be at least 41% of the total number of cards issued in the state, if not more, because of relative poverty factor in the region. But the number of white ration cards issued has all along been around 36-37%, according to the figures published by the Government. Consequently, the loss to the poor people of the region could be seen hereunder:

i) White ration cards 36-37%

ii) Subsidized Rice 37%

iii) Housing (Indiramma Houses) 33.85%

Sources: Socioeconomic Survey, 2009-10; Planning Department, Govt. of AP Directorate of Economics and Statistics

Medicare (Rajiv Aarogyasri) Figures are easily not available: but situation cannot be different as it also is dependent on the white ration cards.

c) Education:

i) Collegiate Education:

It is well known that the salary component paid to the teaching and supporting staff of these institutions constitutes more than 90% of the total expenditure. The region-wise details of staff working in such institutions and thereby the extent of expenditure incurred on them culled out from the official statistics for the year 2007-08 are given hereunder:

Table –XI

Number of Teachers in Government and Aided Degree Colleges

S. No	Region	No. of Teachers	Actual %	Entitlement %
1.	Andhra	8828	70.5	59.31
2.	Telangana	3709	29.50	40.69
3.	Andhra Pradesh	12,537	100	100

Source: Statistical Abstract, 2008; Directorate of Economics and Statistics, AP

A look at the quantum of Grant-in Aid released by the State Government to Private-Aided Colleges for the year 2008-09 throws some more light in this regard. It could be seen in the following Table:

Table –XII

Grant-in-Aid Released to Private Aided Degree Colleges (2008-09)

S. No.	Region	Grant-in-Aid(in Rupees)	Actual %	Entitlement %
1.	Andhra	1,521,445,289	75.25	59.31
2.	Telangana	49,89,60,900	24.75	40.69
	Andhra Pradesh	202,14,05,189	100	100

Source: Commissionerate of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

This disparity has been there ever since the formation of Andhra Pradesh.

ii) University Education:

There are six (old) universities with regional jurisdictions offering facilities of general education. The disparities with regard to Per Capita Block Grant could be seen in the following Table:

Table –XIII

Per Capita Block Grant to the Six Old Universities (2004 to 2009)

S. No	Region	University	Per Capita Block Grant
			(In Rupees)
1.	Andhra	I. Andhra	35,500
		II. Nagarjuna	22,700
		III. Sri Venkateswara	37,500
		IV. Sri Krishna Devaraya	25,000
		Avarage per capita	30,175
2	Telangana	i. Osmania	17,400
		ii. Kakatiya	14,000
		Average per capita	15,700

Source: Budget Documents for the Years 2004-2009 presented to the AP Assembly

This has been going on for the last five decades.

iii.) Professional Education:

Cost-wise professional education, especially in the areas of Medicine and Engineering is the most expensive component of the system. Every additional seat enormously adds to the expenditure. The region-wise expenditure naturally depends upon the number of seats available in every region. Therefore, a perusal of region-wise breakup of seats in these courses also connotes the ratio of expenditure. Tables XIV presents this picture.

Table –XIV

Disparities in Facilities of Professional Education

S. No.	Courses	No. of Seats
		Total (AP)	Andhra	% of Total	Entitlement %	Telangana	% of Total	Entitlement %
1	Medicine	18,000	1200	66.67	59.31	600	33.33	40.69
2	Engineering	3,760	2,625	69.82	59.31	1,135	30.18	40.69

Source: AP State Council of Higher Education

This has been the scenario, all through, not withstanding constant protests, agitations going on in the State, demanding the separation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh.

d) Crop Insurance:

Table XV

Crop Insurance Fund Allocation for the year 2008 - 09

(Rs. In Lakhs)

SNo.	Region	Amount Released	%
1.	Andhra & Rayalaseema	77,897.33	97.23
2.	Telangana	2,223.14	2.77
	Total	80120.47	100

Source: Agricultural Insurance corporation of India

This discrimination is persistent; in fact, the Telangana region should get a major share of this fund as the region is more prone to frequent crop failures. What is important to underscore here is the audacity of the State Government to pursue its blatantly discriminative policies even in the midst of an intensified agitation in Telangana.

Table XVI

NABARD Funds 2008 – 09

(Rs. In Lakhs)

S. No.	Region	Amount Allocated	%
1.	Andhra & Rayalaseema	12,236.42	93.79
2.	Telangana	809.72	6.21
	Total	13,046.14	100

Source: G.O. Rt. No. 1845 dated 11-12-2009 of PR & RD Department, Govt. of A.P.

e) Agricultural Loans:

Table XVII

Long Terms Loans by AP Co-operative Bank (2006 - 07)

(Rs. In Lakhs)

Total Loan (AP)	Andhra Share	% of Total	Entitlement %	Telangana Share	% of Total	Entitlement %
13,797.96	10376.25	75.20	59.31	3421.71	24.80	40.69

Table XVIII

Short Terms Loans by AP Co-operative Bank (2006 - 07)

(Rs. In Lakhs)

Total Loan (AP)	Andhra Share	% of Total	Entitlement %	Telangana Share	% of Total	Entitlement %
314172.21	217354.41	69.18	59.31	96817.80	30.82	40.69

Source: AP State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

The cooperative sector of the State also is following the footsteps of the State Government in denying the Telangana region and its farming community their rightful share even with regard to repayable loans.

Conclusion:

These are only the samples. The situation is not different in other sectors as well. The net result is that the Telangana region is contributing more revenues to the State’s exchequer than the other regions; and, in turn, its getting far less than what it is entitled to in the realm of expenditure. It has been going on for more than half a century, causing immeasurable damage to the economy and people of the region. To epitomize it in one phrase the region has been “plundered”. It is nevertheless, not an unexpected development. The SRC itself was prophetic by observing,

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)

What had happened later to Telangana because of its merger with Andhra is precisely what was predicted by the SRC!

Now the questions before are:

i.) Will the powers that be willing to assess the recurring and cumulative loss caused to Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh?

ii.) Will they be able to determine the quantum of compensation to undo the damage done to the region and its people?

iii.) Who will pay the compensation?

iv.) Would it be possible to correct the situation and prevent its recurrence within the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh?

The only answer to these questions and the only remedy to all the maladies is restoration of status quo ante that existed prior to 1.11.1956, i.e., FORMATION OF TELANGANA STATE.

TRS-SKC...abt DEMAND FOR SEPARATE STATE

DEMAND FOR TELANGANA STATE

Genesis, Spread and Continuance
A 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.