Telangana bill was not rejected decisively::NEWS

Chief Ministers staging dharnas is the flavor of the season. When the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh turned up at Jantar Mantar to prote...

Please click one of the button below to read Full Story / Video.

Chief Ministers staging dharnas is the flavor of the season. When the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh turned up at Jantar Mantar to protest against his own party's decision to pass the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 one cannot help but wonder how a genuine demand for a separate Telangana spiraled into the absurd . 

It is the result of the Congress party's dysfunctional leadership. And it is extremely unfortunate that the Telangana issue is being held hostage to the whims of political expediency and electoral calculations by a desperate dispensation at the Centre. 

The haphazard manner in which the Centre has gone about the process of separation has unfairly reflected on the legitimacy of the argument for a separate Telangana. At the same time the centre has been thoroughly incompetent in safeguarding the interests of Seemandhra, the region that will comprise of the residual state of Andhra Pradesh. 

The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 thus provides the perfect template of how not to divide a state - an example of a perfectly desirable product, stuck in a poisonous process, orchestrated and stage-managed by a pusillanimous Central Government.  

Ever since the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 was introduced in the state assembly last month, the entire debate there has taken place amidst total chaos and utter confusion.  

On January 30th, the speaker after closing the debate on the bill, took up a resolution introduced by the Chief Minister to reject the bill through a voice vote under Rule 77 of the AP Assembly. This validity of the resolution itself is under scrutiny as several key prerequisites were not met. Moreover, in the continuous pandemonium, the Speaker declared the passing of the resolution. 

As per the procedures of the house, under Rule 334 of the AP Assembly, if a division in the voice vote is not sought then the resolution is said to be unanimous. In such confusion and chaos, it was impossible to seek such a division and this is now being projected as a "unanimous rejection of the Telangana Bill in the AP Assembly". 

One must also remember that it is on record that during the time when a debate was actually allowed,  there were strident voices for a separate Telangana state. In such a scenario, a flawed resolution rammed through the house by a partisan majority cannot be termed as decisive as projected by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

It is important that one goes back in time to understand the rationale for our founding fathers to entrust the responsibility of the formation of states to the centre alone. On 17th of November 1948, Article 3 of the Indian constitution was being discussed in the Constituent Assembly of India. Shri Kasturiranga Santhanam representing Madras, General was responding to an amendment proposed by Professor K T Shah. Prof. Shah wanted any future changes to the structure of states to originate as legislation from the respective state legislatures. Shri Santhanam in his response states," Mr. Vice-President, I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realizes the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, 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." Mr. Santhanam then went on to warn "Therefore, by Mr. Shah's amendment instead of democracy we will have absolute autocracy of the majority in every province and State. That is certainly not what Professor Shah wants."

This clearly shows that our founding fathers had explicitly thought of this case. Sadly, the resolution to reject the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013, is a perfect example of the case cited by Shri K. Santhanam while drafting the constitution - where the absolute autocracy of the majority can prevail instead of a democracy.

Tweet

Sponsored Links