What is rationale behind division?

The Centre cannot impose its decision on the States except when there is an emergency. Unless there is emergency, the federal principle shall prevail

The Congress Working Committee’s decision on July 30, 2013 to form Telangana State was undemocratic, autocratic, politically motivated and unconstitutional. A hasty declaration was made without much discussion among the stakeholders. But for a mere mention of the Srikrishna committee, which did not categorically recommend for the separation of AP State -- the report must have been tabled first in the Houses of AP for discussions and pursuant to a resolution for separation, if any, should have been placed before Parliament -- nothing has been deliberated at the CWC meeting, or in the Cabinet or the Parliament.

None of the MPs, MLAs and Ministers from Andhra Pradesh was consulted prior to the CWC resolution. Due to the unilateral action, there has been utter chaos and confusion. Andhra and Rayalaseema people got offended for hurting their feelings and sentiments. As a result, the Seemandhra region has been witnessing massive demonstrations and protests for over two months. Had there been representation and the hearing of views from both Telangana and Seemandhra people and leaders belonging to all the political parties, NGOs and employees, things would have been different.

In a welfare state, the government and the political party in power must take decisions meant for the welfare of the people. There must have been free and fair consultations with all the stakeholders before the decision was taken. Since no such consultations had taken place, it may be concluded that it was a unilateral decision. It is highly refutable and the decision which is politically motivated should be withdrawn.

The committees - so many like the Srikrishna Committee, Pranab Committee, Rosaiah Committee -- which might have been meant to pacify and prolong the issue to avoid agitations and as a measure to cajole the people -- did not recommend State division. The new Antony Committee set up to collect the views and opinions should have been constituted before announcing the T decision.

Federalism and democracy, are inter alia the basic structures of the Indian Constitution [as declared in Kesavananda Bharathi case]. Federal principle is a sine qua non for democracy. In ordinary circumstances India should remain federal as viewed by the framers of the Constitution, especially the chairman of the drafting committee of the statute.

Provisions empowering the Central Legislature under Article 3 and the emergency provisions of the Indian Constitution must be utilized only when the security of the State is at stake. The Preamble of the Constitution provides for unity and integrity of the nation besides fraternity. Integration is our ideal and one of the best practices of any State. Unity is strength and the united we can develop the better. Fraternity is one of the goals set out in the Preamble of our Constitution.

The Centre cannot impose its decision on the States except when there is an emergency. Unless there is emergency, the federal principle shall prevail. There being no emergency circumstances in the State of Andhra Pradesh, there should have been no decision to divide the State. Dividing a state without proper, prior consultations with stakeholders and consensus thereof is undemocratic and is ultra vires the Constitution. The CWC has no representation from Andhra Pradesh. The only one, G Sanjiva Reddy, is a special invitee and he is from Hyderabad! Therefore, and in fact, the CWC decision was undemocratic, anti-sentimental and violative of the basic structures of the Constitution.

The Andhra Pradesh State was formed as a result of the reorganization of States and linguistic cultural segregation. We are all sentimentally attached with the Capital City Hyderabad. Division envisages and we mean as if we secede an important part of our body. What is the rationale behind the division?

If administrative convenience were the reason, each district has to be divided and ruled. Divide and Rule is not our policy and polity but of the British who ruled our country for two centuries. It is irrational to divide a State for administrative convenience.

If it were due to the alleged fact that Telangana had been neglected, show a single incidence where a person is denied an opportunity only based on his place of birth?

If it were for creation of employment opportunities and promotions to the people of Telangana, do all the small States get employment opportunities except for building the infrastructure for the separate State?

Employment opportunities arise when industries are set up and skills are developed. In such a scenario, migration for employment would also be inevitable, even without the possibility of creating need-based and innovative industrial and business ventures. If it were for prosperity and development, see the ill-development in Rayalaseema and North Andhra regions.

The solution does not lie in the separation of State, but decentralization of administration and siphoning powers and functions to the lower level. For instance, constitution of Special Development Authorities for all the backward districts akin to Special Kadapa District Development Authority and the effective implementation of the welfare schemes through a special drive.
(The writer is Principal, Sri Prasunna College of Law, Kurnool)