Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu asserted on Tuesday that Andhra Pradesh eminently qualified for Special Category Status (SCS) by virtue of unviable nature of the State finances and the economic and infrastructure backwardness.
Making a statement on the issue in the Assembly, he not only sought SCS but also a special package and reiterated that the Centre should hand-hold the State till it achieved a level-playing field on par with the neighbouring States.
Appealing to the Opposition not to politicise the issue, he urged all members to collectively strive for making AP the number one State in the country.
Observing that Central government has not abolished the distinction between special category and general category states, he said it was evident from the 14{+t}{+h}Finance Commission report that AP would be the only State, other than the Special Category states, that would have subsisting revenue gap even in 2019-20, and potentially afterwards.
Mr. Naidu said even States that have been traditionally fragile from the fiscal stability angle such as Odisha, Bihar, and Rajasthan, would have a revenue surplus after 42 per cent devolution starting 2015-16 financial year.
The case of AP for SCS became stronger following the Central government’s decision to recast the Centrally-sponsored schemes.
Hitting out at the previous UPA government for the “whimsical’’ manner in which the united State was divided, he said the Reorganisation Act and its hurried implementation created serious negative consequences to the new State.
There have been serious conflicts relating to the institutions included in Schedule IX and X of the Act, series of problems relating to admission of AP students in the institutions of higher learning located in and around Hyderabad, sharing of river waters and allocation of government staff, among others.
He said the loss of Hyderabad city, which has been a major source of revenues to the pre-bifurcated State, left AP with only 47 per cent of revenues to support 59 per cent of the population of the united State. He expressed his anguish that different criteria were followed for division of assets and liabilities between the two States.
