AP Bifurcation: Seemandhra Politicians' Arguments Unconstitutional

This is to call the bluffs of the political opportunists of Seemandhra, mainly – Kiran Kumar Reddy, Chandra Babu Naidu, Jayaprakash Narayan, Jaganmohan Reddy, and other minions as well as those others like Rajnath Singh, Narendra Modi, Deve Gouda, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mamata Banerji, Prakash Karat who issue utterly nonsensical statements that insult the Founding fathers of India and its Constitution, like Dr Ambedkar, K. Santanam, Pandit Hridaynath Kunzru, Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, Prof K.T. Shah, Prof. Shibanlal Saksena, Chaudhri Ranbir Singh, and H.V. Kamath.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India took place in Constitution Hall, New Delhi, on Monday, the 9th December 1946, at Eleven of the Clock. Acharya J. B. Kripalani (United Provinces: General): requested Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha to take the Chair as temporary Chairman.

Article 3 was created and written in such a manner as if the Founding Fathers were thinking of Telangana and its People almost seventy years ahead. It was essentially written to free a minority of population from the clutches and the tyranny of the majority.

In fact, the first population that benefited from the provisions of Article 3 was the very same Seemandhras who were agitating for a separate state of their own, Andhra, from Madras in which they were a minority. What the current Seemandhra leadership is demanding today would have denied them a State. Such a thoughtless and ungrateful conduct is nothing but perfidy (treachery). It is akin to burning the boat after reaching the shores so that nobody else could use it.

The politicians and so called Andhra Intellectual Federation of Seemandhra neither have the intellect nor knowledge or the patriotism possessed by the stalwarts I mentioned who authored Article 3 of India’s Constitution. These minions are ill-educated, ill-informed, and therefore ill-qualified to speak on the issue of State Reorganizations which is embodied in Article 3. Obviously, they have never studied the Constitution or the Founding Father’s Intentions and Reasons for writing the Article in such a way!

I may rehash here that the Article 3 bestows the sole authority of reorganizing States, one state at a time or many states at a time although the President of India has to approve before placing the bill in the Parliament.

The most enlightening part of Article 3 is that the power to reorganize State(s) is placed in the People (Parliament) by expressly removing it from the Government’s purview. The second most progressive part of Article 3 is that Reorganization of State(s) can be initiated by ANY member of Parliament and not limited to the party in power. Read these clarifications enunciated by Dr Ambedkar, Chairman of the Committee charged with authoring the Article 3:

Mr. Vice-President, if one were to compare the amended proviso with the original proviso as it was set out in the Draft Constitution, the Members will see that the new amendment introduces two changes.

In my opinion, the MOST enlightening and the most progressive provision, not expressly pointed but most emphatically stated by the Founding fathers, is the Right of Aggrieved People (citizens) to petition the President requesting partition of a State in the interest of their welfare. The Founding Fathers were very deeply concerned of the plight of a minority (not necessarily religious or such) in a large state and the tyranny of the majority. They were so worried that the majority will never allow the minority population to represent themselves effectively. They did not want the majority to suppress the voice of the minority of the population in a state. Read the forceful and unambiguous declaration by these Founding fathers in what the Article 3 stands for:

"Lest I should be misunderstood, I would at once add that I am certainly not in love with the present position, or the continuance of the alignment of the provinces and States as they stand today. They need to be altered, they must be altered. But they must be altered only as and how the people primarily affected desire them to be altered, and not in accordance with the preconception,

the notion, of such adjustment that those at the Centre may have, even if some of those at the Centre are the representatives of the people concerned.

I make it imperative, therefore, that the first proposition, the initiation of the movement either to integrate or to separate, either to readjust the boundaries or to bring about any new form of configuration, must commence with the people themselves.

I admit that in democracy majority rule should prevail. But the majority has not the monopoly of being always right and still less to be always just."

"Mr. Vice-President, I wonder whether…, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory, either for forming a new province or for joining an adjacent State unless it can get a majority in that State legislature

. …Take the case of the madras Province for instance. The Andhras want separation. They bring up a resolution in the madras legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhras is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province. On the other hand, as re-drafted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, if the

Andhras fail to get a majority in the legislature, they can go straight to the President and represent to him what the majority did in their case and ask for further action removing the block in the way of a province for them. If they are able to convince the President, he may recommend it and either the Government of India may themselves sponsor legislation for the purpose or any private Member or a group in the Central legislature can take up the question”

"Mr. Vice-President, .All that I am asking for is that the consent of the States should not be necessary for a re-organisation of their territories. Consultation with them should be quite enough." "…

Parliament, and not the President, should have the right to determine the matter after taking into account the opinion of the people of the area concerned and of the vote of the provincial legislature. It is therefore necessary that every Member of the parliament should have the right to give notice of such a bill. Views of the provincial legislature may be taken

but the changes should be effected in accordance with the wishes of the people of the area, who want separation. If this is not done then the principle of self-determination would be nowhere. We used to hear that after the attainment of Swaraj the right of selfdetermination would be given to all…. Views of the legislatures may be invited, and may be taken into consideration; but the determining factor should be the vote of the people of the area, which wants to separate."

"Mr. Vice-President, …. there is no question of taking the consent of the States…. I think, mere consultation would be sufficient

in the matter of the States also as it is in connection with the Provinces….

Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this is a fundamental matter, ..The only condition is this, namely, that the President after he receives notice of such a motion from any Member will try to take the opinion of the area concerned and then, of course after consulting his Ministry, give his recommendation for moving the Bill….

if the President feels that the people of an area - the majority of them - are of the opinion that they would be happier if they go to some other State or Province, he would advise the Prime Minister, and probably the Prime Minister also will agree with him that the motion should be allowed and that Parliament should be allowed to discuss the question.

I think that gives full liberty and opportunity to every area which desires a change of boundaries.

"…. I am inclined to agree, therefore, with Pandit Kunzru's argument …we should not go beyond obtaining the views of the rulers of the States or the legislatures of the States, whatever the case may be.

As you read through these Members' forceful and wise arguments on the issue of a region separating from a State, you cannot but appreciate how deeply they analyzed and how carefully they articulated the concerns and rights of their citizens with regard to their desire for self-determination in forming a State of their own. They even discussed how a minority within a State could be oppressed and subjugated by the majority of the state. And how the weaker and less powerful regions could be made helpless and deprived of their rightful demand to form a separate State."

All the members of the Constituent Assembly were more concerned and supportive of the Minorities in a State and their right to separate from a State than concern for the rule of majority. Also, they NEVER uttered the words Law and Order while debating this issue. They never doubted the ability of the minority people, people of a region, in developing their new separate State. That was never a question in their minds.

And these leaders were remarkable, liberal, democratic and revolutionary in their thought processes even in those early days of the Republic unlike today. They did not think such separations and formations of new States affected the Nation adversely.

How did we end up with such ill-informed, undemocratic, oppressive, intolerant public leaders today in our country? Especially, the Seemandhra politicians and other who are supporting them in their unjust and greedy pursuit?

Seemandhra Politicians and the CM, Kiran Kumar Reddy are wasting time and making unconstitutional requirements like obtaining CONSENT the majority of population of the whole state of Andhra Pradesh. COf course, the Seemandhras who form a majority of AP will certainly want to deny the people of Telangana their Constitutionally guaranteed right to ask and receive a state of their own and to guide their own destiny. This kind of tyranny by majority exactly was what was feared by the Founding Fathers and that kind of oppression by majority is what exactly they wanted to remove from being played out.

The constant drumming of “Telugu Jaati” and demand for a unitary linguistic state (one state for one language) by Seemandhras is contrary to the spirit of India’s Constitution as well as its originator, Dr Ambedkar who expressed his strong views on linguistic states In in his book "THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES" (1955), Part III, summarized his thoughts on forming linguistic States as follows:

(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the formula of one language, one State.

(4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking one language should be brought under one Government irrespective of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the people speaking the language. ….This is an absurd formula and has no precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking one language may be cut up into many States as is done in other parts of the world.