Misleading people on statute position on division
Misleading People on Statute Position on Division, Separated Andhra, Bifurcation Issue. Splitting Telangana from un-integrating Seemandhra is for unity of the nation. Separating from separated Andhra is no separation at all. It is strange that APNGOS talk about integrity and unity.
Splitting Telangana from un-integrating Seemandhra is for unity of the nation. Separating from separated Andhra is no separation at all. It is strange that APNGOS talk about integrity and unity.
Congressmen and women from Seemandhra, who could not stop their own leaders from taking a decision on Telangana are propagating that the Constitutional and legislative processes are there to stop bifurcation, just to raise baseless hopes in Seemandhra and generate doubts and frustration in Telangana. It is highly unethical, though not criminal. On top of it, Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy has assured APNGOS that he would defeat the resolution in the State Legislative Assembly.
In fact, Constitution does not require any resolution or voting in the Assembly on the issue of state reorganization. It is clear from Article 3 of the Constitution that a Bill will be referred to the concerned State Assembly “for expressing its views thereon” within a specified period. It does not envisage any voting as there can be no introduction of a resolution or Bill. The Speaker has to record the ‘expressed’ opinions and report it to the Union or President for their consideration.
It is an opportunity to give constructive suggestions to protect interests of two states while dividing assets, liabilities and services. It is just consultation which does not mean seeking consent. Rejection does not matter.
Talking about letter and spirit of the Constitution, it is a matter of fact that the AP Assembly resolved and recorded statement of every legislative party leader who supported decision on Telangana, irrespective of some subsequent U turns. Still, Constitutional process demands a formal consultation but surely not the consent or simple majority vote or passage of Bill for Telangana in the Assembly which is to be introduced in Parliament. Even if the State Assembly fails to convene a meeting or conduct proceedings due to pandemonium etc, or expire the period, those cannot constitutionally stop the state reorganization bill from being considered by Parliament. The only requirement is that the Union should have determination to go ahead.
The President will have to wait until the period specified or extended to expire and then he can recommend Parliament to consider the state reorganization bill.
There should be voting in Parliament on the Bill. It is for the managers of the Government to get the bill passed, in the backdrop of Seemandhra opposition.
It is a chance for the Seemandhra MPs to show their strength. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, President cannot return it because it was he who recommended it.
Congress general secretary in charge of AP affairs Digvijay Singh was not technically correct when he said that the AP Assembly would get two chances to discuss the Telangana issue while the correct position was explained by Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, that the Bill alone would reach the State Assembly as reference for views. Some Constitution experts criticised that Article 3 was against the spirit of Federation as it accords plenary power to the Union Government to split the states without their consent. But, the Constitution has nowhere stated that India was a federation. National and international authorities on Indian Constitution explained that India was a quasi federation with tendency to become ‘unitary’ in character in different circumstances.
Ambedkar described India as indestructible Union of destructible states. It was extensively deliberated in the Constituent Assembly and eminent people like Ambedkar convinced members about the need to have such power to build united India. If you do not allow a minority which would perpetually remain a minority like Telangana with ten districts compared to 13 of Seemandhra, their genuine grievances of exploitation and suppression would go unheard, which is very bad for unity and integrity of a nation.
Constitutionality of Article 3 on these lines of federation and soverignty of provincial states was considered and concluded by the Supreme Court in more than one judgments and the plenary power of Parliament to create new states in spite of opposition of existing state was affirmed and reinforced. Splitting Telangana from un-integrating Seemandhra is for unity of the nation. Separating from separated Andhra is no separation at all. It is strange and pathetic that APNGOS who do not see eye to eye with Telangana colleagues in Secretariat talk about integrity and unity. With repeated statements of CM and leader of opposition, the expression ‘Samaikya Vadi’ (integrationist) assumed the meaning of “Telangana Vyatireki” (anti-Telangana).
No leader has ever tried to reassure that they consider Telangana people as the integrated part of AP at least in the last 70 days of state-sponsored, contractor-politician-supported agitation. Their stand, abuses, actions of burning effigies, indecent flexies proved more disunity than integration.
It is difficult to understand why educated, dynamic and fairly rich people believe these selfish false statements of politicians and their twisting tongues? They have all agreed in secrecy for bifurcation of state.
They asked high command to decide some way or the other and end the T tangle and they would abide by it. It is a matter of record besides video recordings to show how they took several U turns.
With the setting up of a 10-member Group of Ministers to go into the issues arising out of the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh like boundaries, sharing of river waters, assets and a host of other things, the State division throws up many questions and doubts that beckon solutions and answers. At the same time, the Telangana state formation process is also set to begin. Here we invite the public, our readers, to participate and express their opinions through these columns on the issues that are likely to crop up when the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh is formalized. Two States … one capital and the challenges ahead for Telangana and Seemandhra people and their leaders.
So far, we had carried points and counter-points in favour of and against bifurcation from a cross-section of people in the Debate column. The views/opinions expressed by our readers had mostly dealt with the points raised by the Congress Working Committee’s decision and announcement on July 30 on carving out 10 districts of Telangana as a state. Now, once the new state is formed what are the people’s expectations and hopes; similarly, how the people in the other two regions want their state to be developed and more importantly plan a brand new capital city in 10 years? “THE ISSUES” is intended to address all these plus much more. In other words, the writers should look at the future rather than digging into the past.
Please send your views to firstname.lastname@example.org marking them for THE ISSUES column and the length of the article should not exceed 800 words. Attach a passport size photograph and include a two-liner about self and full address at the end of the article.