Who needs Article 371(D)?

The battle for unity and demerger of Andhra Pradesh seems to have come to a logical end as of now .The government and people of the State heaved a sigh of relief with NGOs calling off the 66-day-old strike. The 'Akanshalu' of Telangana and the 'Manobhavalu' of Seemandhra appear to have been smothered for the time being. However, both the parties have come to a common understanding involuntarily on an important issue that concerns the NGOs. It is about the Article 371(D) that came into effect from July 1, 1974. We know the background of the Article. Jai Andhra movement and the Mulki struggle forced the Union Government to make this adjustment to douse the fire at that time.

Sometimes, the struggles of people lead to unsolicited solutions and in that process bring some relief to problems that are not considered by the ruling elite as serious. Article 371(D) is an important provision that takes care of the economic inequalities built into our system due to several historical and political factors.

A dispassionate analysis of the 1972-73 struggles brings out the fact that the development model pursued by the ruling dispensations did not provide enough opportunities to the people who fought against two different formations and consequently came together under an emotional note. The post-independent India crafted some policies to create opportunities for socially marginalized groups and the same were extended in the newly formed State. But, disillusioned with the slow process, people were waiting for an occasion to wreck their vengeance against the system, grabbed the occasion to rally round. If we are willing to accept, it is not opaque to note that the desire to capture power by some social formations started in Andhra region about that time that led to a different political milieu by 1980s.

The situation in Telangana region is different. The region as part of Nizams' province was an independent country when the British declared independence in 1947. Therefore, they joined the present state at different levels. First, as a part of Indian Union through police action on September 17, 1948, and then as a Telugu speaking chunk dispersing the Maratha, Kannada speaking regions by merging with Andhra Pradesh in 1956.The people had several apprehensions due to the feudal oppression and got some assurances in the form of Gentlemen’s Agreement. But, the agreement was not comprehensive as there were no social clauses or assurances for the Bahujans of the region. Naturally, both in Telangana and Andhra, the newly emerging groups found the situation hostile. The leadership in political parties being opportunistic did not recognize the discontent. It seems the hostility continues....

Keeping the context in mind, we can now ponder over Article 371(D). There is interesting debate over the issue by different interested parties and they need to be considered seriously to avert another dissent soon. If we carefully examine the Article, it is kept as Part XXI consisting of “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions.” Someone has already remarked that the President was given powers, “having regard to the requirements for the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State".

There are 10 Clauses in the Article clearly dovetailing with the local areas, jobs, Administrative Tribunals and other legal provisions that are upheld by the apex court on several occasions. Therefore, some people are anticipating possible intimidation/abetment if the Article is retained under the Telangana/Andhra State Act.

The special or transitory provisions under Article 371 were used in the context of Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960, Nagaland and others later. It is only in relation to Andhra Pradesh, the issue of reservation of jobs; admissions, appointment and allotment of posts etc are indicated. It appears to be a farfetched and elaborate composition that has resulted in litigation, heart burning among some groups. However, this is a deft note that should be considered here for settling disputes in anticipation. This is in no way a hurdle for the bifurcation or trifurcation of the existing State as it is not going to change the basic structure of the Constitution. This will remain as a part of the State Act or can be modified keeping in view special needs of the regions within the newly formed states. The demand of the NGOs in both the regions to retain the Article adds strength.

Article 371(D) is specific to Andhra Pradesh. Apropos the unique socio-economic conditions of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (regions within), it is incumbent on the part of the GoM or some other authority to conduct an exercise as to what are the ' divides and despairs' that would likely to contrive future disquiet. The Andhra State Act 1953, for instance, contained several clauses and 9 schedules. Interestingly, the Act had provisions relating to caste-based reservations for SC, ST and OBC categories to give legitimacy for the castes of Madras Presidency in the newly formed Andhra Pradesh.

Now the same issues might recur and require elaboration of Article 371(D) in the light of the above to satisfy the demands of Bahujans in both the states.

The NGOs might be thinking that it would protect their jobs, but the article is so elaborate that it would protect the weak from the dominant who have grabbed positions and power disproportionate to their place in the districts, castes, religion etc. For instance, some castes in Telangana need to be recast as the equivalents in the combined list may not appear in Telangana, quota for minorities, EBC etc to be considered to meet the demands of social justice (Samajika Telangana). A composite index of deprivation needs to be developed to protect the interests of the deprived and to shun the corrupt officers to rule the roost.

At the regional level, Uttarandhra is left in the lurch. Telangana is likely to be an independent state and the two regions Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra have joined as Seemandhra keeping aside the voiceless North Andhra with typical socio-political and economic problems. If Article 371(D) is left untouched or modified to provide protection to the weak and oppressed groups, North Andhra would survive. Otherwise, the region that is already occupied by outsiders would turn the region in the making of another battle. Therefore, Article 371(D) being an all pervasive and safeguarding provision, should be retained to meet the needs of the disadvantaged.