The Legislative Council witnessed angry exchanges between Legislative Affairs Minister S. Sailajanath and ruling party MLC from Karimnagar T. Bhanu Prasad Rao during the debate on A.P. Reorganisation Bill on Sunday.
Intervening during the debate soon after K. Dileep Kumar and G. Srinivasulu Naidu spoke, he said it was unfortunate that there were people who were still praising Nizams’ rule forgetting the sufferings of people then.
Mr. Bhanu Prasad got up and started objecting to Mr. Sailajanath’s remarks when the latter was stating that there was no Telangana in the past and all its assets belonged to joint Hyderabad State that comprised parts of present Karnataka and Maharashtra. Chairman A. Chakrapani announced tea-break when the members were getting personal. The spat spilled over to the tea-break but subsided later.
Earlier, Mr. Dileep Kumar (TRS) justified the demand for Telangana citing how the region was neglected and faced discrimination. The rulers in united AP did not allow equitable distribution of wealth by violating all agreements and promises made at the time of merger, he noted.
He explained how Hyderabad evolved as fifth-largest city in the country from the 16 Century when it was founded and remarked that it would be ridiculous if somebody claimed that they had developed it.
Accepting that many mistakes were committed in case of Telangana including violation of agreements, Paladugu Venkata Rao (Congress) said bifurcation was not the solution. His comments against Nizams’ rule were strongly opposed by nominated MLC Farooq Hussain.
He said feudalists and landlords were behind the movements of 1969 in Telangana and 1972 in Andhra for political power.
Conspiracy The present demand for Telangana could become people’s movement not because of suicides by over 1,000 youth but for majority people joining it. He stated that there was P.V. Narasimha Rao’s conspiracy in ousting K.V. Brahmananda Reddy.
Independent MLC Mr. Srinivasulu Naidu said the demand for bifurcation on the premise of self-respect and self-rule was not justifiable.
