Concerns of Seemandhra Mantris ignored: Purandeswari

Hyderabad: The decision of the Union Cabinet to approve the States Reorganisation Bill continues to receive flak from Ministers of Seemandhra region.

While Union Minister for Textiles Kavuri Sambasiva Rao felt that the Bill may not go to parliament, another Union Minister Daggubati Purandeswari wrote a letter to the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi stating that the GoM had not considered any of the concerns that were raised by them.

Addressing the media, Purandeswari said that, in her letter, she had expressed her displeasure over the injustice that was meted to the Seemandhra region in the Draft Bill to bifurcate the state. She said if the Bill was introduced in parliament without necessary amendments, she would oppose it and would vote against it.

She said, ''We have asked for the Hyderabad to be made Union Territory on the lines of Delhi for a period of 10 years or till the capital of the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh is built. But, they have decided Hyderabad as common capital, the concept of which is not there in the Constitution of India,'' she said.

Purandeswari said that asking a Chief Minister of the residuary state to conduct the state administration sitting about 300 kms away was nothing but an insult to him. She said that vesting powers over law and order with the Governor was not proper as he was not easily approachable to a common man. As the Police officials, she said, would be appointed by the Telangana government there would be apprehensions over justice being rendered.

Reiterating that education and employment were the key concerns not given due importance in the Bill, the union minister said, ''All the development was concentrated in and around Hyderabad. Educational institutions and employment opportunities are found only in Hyderabad. Children from Seemandhra look towards Hyderabad for educational opportunities and later employment.

There was need for confidence building on this account, she said. Elaborating further, she said though in the Draft Bill, assurances were made for setting up IIT, IIIT, IIM, central university, there was no clarity as regard to funding and timeline. ''It is said that funding will be made in 13th plan, but it will commence in 2016 and continue till 2021. Do our children have to wait that long.

Further there were no proposals, discussions on budgetary allocations etc. Reports indicate that even resources to MHRD were also cut. How the government proposes to support such an endeavour going out of the way? It should make it clear,'' she added. She said the Draft Bill also does not give any clarity on issues like HPCL, Vizag-Chennai industrial corridor, tax incentives, railway zones etc. this means that the residuary state would have to depend only on agriculture.

Government of India has to clarify as to what sort of tax incentives and holidays it proposes. When Uttarakhand was created the then government had agreed 15-year tax incentive, which the subsequent government decreased to 10 years. Hence, there was a need for an assured tax incentive for 15 years for the industrial growth in residuary state,' she said.

The Minister further said that when she raised the issue with Jairam Ramesh, he told her that these issues could be discussed in Assembly and Parliament. But what causes concern is that there is no mention of steel plant for Kadapa where iron ore was available but steel for Khammam found place in the draft bill, she said.

She was of the opinion that Polavaram project would remain a non-starter unless Bhadrachalam division was merged with East Godavari. Once the state was bifurcated the new state would not cooperate in completing the project, she said in her letter.