The Legislative Council on Saturday witnessed an interesting convergence of views when the integrationists and Telangana protagonists blamed the `self-serving political system’ for the movements in India’s first linguistic State.
The members, be it TRS floor leader K. Swami Goud, who supported the Telangana Bill or the V. Balasubramanyam (Teachers) who opposed it, were on the same footing when they said the political parties and the successive governments lacked political vision to ensure equitable development of all the regions in the State.
Resuming the debate in the House on the A.P State Reorganisation Bill, Mr. Swami Goud, however, said that a stage had come now when Telananga people strongly believed that unless they have their own State and a responsive government, their interests would not be served.Lopsided development
Attributing the rise of regionalism to the lopsided development, he said the successive Chief Ministers, including those from Telangana, had failed to implement the gentlemen’s agreement and protective measures in place to safeguard the interests of Telangana people.
While Mulki rules were done away with after the Jai Andhra movement to benefit people from Andhra, the Six-point Formula brought in to implement the zonal system was blatantly violated.
Proposing several amendments to the draft Bill, he said they wanted Telangana State with full rights and powers and were against special protection for the common capital.‘Bifurcation will spell doom for federalism’
Mr. Subramanyam said without analysing the reason for the backwardness across the regions and suggesting remedies in the draft Bill, dividing States would spell doom for the spirit of federalism. Rubbishing the argument that small States would ensure better administration and development, he raised the plight of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand.
There was a sinister design behind the division of big States as it would be easier for the MNCs, World Bank and capitalists to exploit smaller States.
Neither the Congress nor the BJP was interested in dividing the State on the basis of democratic aspirations, he said.
Adireddi Apparao of the YSR Congress rejected the ‘incomplete’ Bill as well as the State bifurcation . “The undemocratic division would harm both the regions and people of Seemandhra were not prepared to lose Hyderabad as it emerged as the sole growth engine for the entire State,” he said.‘T Bill unconstitutional’
Terming the draft Bill as unconstitutional, he said the State with special provisions could not be divided under Article 3 of the Constitution without amending Articles 371(D), 371(E) first with two-thirds of majority in the Parliament.