TRS Full Report to Srikrishna Committe

To
Shri Vinod K. Duggal
Member Secretary
Committee for Consultations on
the Situation in Andhra Pradesh
Government of India
Room No.248, Vigyan Bhavan Annexe
Moulana Azad Road
New Delhi 110011

Dear Shri Duggal ji,

Kindly find enclosed detailed notes regarding the five and a half decade
long demand and struggle of the people of Telangana for the formation of
their own State. It is in response to the public notice issued by the
Committee inviting views and suggestions on the issues involved.

Our views and suggestions are presented in four volumes.They are:

Volume ± I Consists of Historical Perspective, Income and Expenditure,
Education, The Capital City, Judiciary, Language and
culture, FAQs and Answers;
Volume ± II Deals with Irrigation;
Volume ± III Explains the Employment scenario; and
Volume ± IV Concerns the situation regarding the Power Sector.

I am making this submission on behalf of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi
(TRS). The Notes are self explanatory. I hope they will receive the due
attention of the Committee. It may not be out of place to bring to the notice
of the Committee that the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has been
championing the cause of Telangana for the last one decade.

A Conditional Merger:

I would like to bring to the kind notice of the Committee that the demand of
the people of Telangana for a separate state is not a new development. It
was voiced much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to
be raised even thereafter. The reason for the reluctance of people for the
merger of Telangana with Andhra then was the fear of exploitation, neglect
and injustice in the enlarged state of Andhra Pradesh. And the reason for
their resistance now to continue in the existing set up is the actual
experience of exploitation, neglect and injustice.

The merger of Telangana with Andhra took place against the wishes of the
people of the region and contrary to a categorical recommendation of the
States Reorganisation Commission, besides the reluctance of the Prime
Minister of the time Jawaharlal Nehru.

The merger was the result of manipulative politics. It was, however, not
unconditional, nor was it considered eternal. It was facilitated by a number
of solemn promises made and constitutional safeguards given to the
people of Telangana as a protective umbrella against the possible
exploitation. These promises were made a number of times, but none of

them was ever honoured. In the process, Telangana became a victim of
broken promises.

Promises Broken:

The Gentlemen¶s Agreement of 1956, which was an assurance of fair
play given to the people of Telangana to facilitate the formation of Andhra
Pradesh, was scuttled the very same day on which the State was born, by
the very same ³Gentlemen´ who were signatories to the agreement.

The All Party Accord of January 1969 arrived at a meeting of the leaders
of all the political parties in the State, convened by the then Chief Minister
Brahmananda Reddy, was shelved in less than six months time.

The Eight Point Formula and the Five Point Formula announced by the
Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi in 1969, were not even given a
fair trial.

The historic verdict of the Supreme Court of India validating the Mulki
Rules was got annulled by the Parliament, succumbing to the pressure of
anti Telangana lobby of Andhra -- something unheard of in a democratic
polity!

The Six Point Formula, a diluted form of safeguards, was foisted on the
people as an alternative. Even this formula has been, and continues to be,
violated with impunity, robbing the people of Telangana of whatever little
was left in the name of safeguards.

The root cause for the failure of all these exercises was that, they were
attempts to treat only the symptoms and not the malady. Consequently, the
exploitation of the region and its people continued -- and still continues ±
unabated, under the patronage of Andhra political leadership. In this
process the so called concept of Telugu Brotherhood has become
irrelevant, placing the people of Telangana in an extremely unenviable
position.

Deprived of their legitimate share in the fruits of development,
marginalized in the political process and administrative setup,
belittled on the social, cultural and linguistic fronts, the natives are
virtually reduced to the status of second-rate citizens in their own
homeland.

Multiple Dimensions of the Issue:

It is to be realized that the demand for Telangana State is not a mere
political slogan; it has an economic angle; it has socio-cultural and linguistic
dimensions; it is blended with a feeling of self respect and the desire for
self rule. The continuous subjugation of the people of this region in every
sphere of their lives has turned their hazy fears at the time of the merger
into strong emotions and sentiments.

The plight of the people of Telangana in their own homeland is manifold.
They are narrated briefly hereunder:

i. The natural and financial resources of the region are plundered and
diverted for the development of the other regions. They include river
waters, coal, mineral wealth and revenue income of Telangana.
Consequently, this region is lagging behind the other regions in the
realm of economic development;

ii. There is a deepening crisis in the Agricultural sector causing ever
increasing suicides of farmers;

iii. Artisan class is in distress. Suicides of weavers and village
craftsmen are increasing year by year;

iv. The distress in the rural areas is causing unabated migration of
labour, abandoning their houses and families;

v. The longest stretch of flow of the Krishna River is in the
Mahboobnagar District. Yet the district is converted almost into a
desert;

vi. The largest masonry dam of the country, Nagarjuna Sagar, is in
Nalgonda District. But the people of the district do not get even
drinking water free from fluoride. As a result, several lakhs of people,
besides animals, have become, and continue to become, victims of
fluorosis ± crippled and disabled for the whole life;

vii. Dalits of this region do not get the benefit of a variety welfare
schemes commensurate with the ratio of their population vis-à-vis the
population of Dalits in the other region;

viii. The condition of Tribals in the agency areas of the region is
miserable. A large number of them perish every year because of
seasonal diseases, in the absence of even minimum medical facilities
in those areas. The abject poverty of Tribals is such that they cannot
even afford to bring up their children. Consequently, infant sale by the
Tribals is becoming more and more rampant. The percentage of
population of Tribals is more in Telangana than in the other regions of
the State. As the reservations and incentives meant for them are on
the basis of percentage of their population in the entire State, their
quota in Telangana gets reduced. Tribals constitute about 12% of
total population in the Telangana region, but State¶s average for
reservations to Tribals in employment and Educational institutions is
only 6%.

ix. The Muslim minority of the region has lost its preeminence which it
enjoyed in the past. It is a totally neglected section of the people in
matters of education, employment, economic development,
participation in the polity and language and culture. Low literacy rate
among the Muslims is getting further compounded by an abnormally
high rate of dropouts at the school level. It is as high as 90% as
confessed by the Minister for Minority Welfare of the State. The
Muslim Community is made to suffer perennially with a feeling of
insecurity, neglect and deprivation.

x. On the industrial front quite a few major industries inherited from the
erstwhile Hyderabad State are either closed down or sold out. To
mention a few: the Azamjahi Mills in Warangal, the largest textile mill
of the times in Asia, has been closed down; the Nizam¶s Sugar
Factory in Bodhan, the largest Sugar mill of the times in Asia, has
been sold out to Andhra investors at a throw away price; the Sirsilk
Factory in Sirpur, Spinning Mills of Antargaon, DBR Mills, Allwyn
Factory, Republic Forge, Glass Factory have been abandoned. The
Fertiliser Factory at Ramagundem and IDPL in Hyderabad have also
been liquidated. The level of employment in the Singareni Collieries is
being pruned year after year.

The industrial development that has taken place in and around the
capital city has not benefited the Telangana in any way. The land,
water and power and other infrastructure facilities, made available to
these industries belong entirely to Telangana; yet the migrants from
the other regions are given more than 95% of the jobs. No major
industry worth its name has been set up in any of the districts of the
Telangana region as compared to the establishment of several
industries in Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Kakinada, Nellore,
Tirupathi, Kadapa and Kurnool in the other regions.

xi. On the political front, the leadership of Telangana is completely
marginalized. It is not allowed to grow, and even if it does, is not
allowed to sustain itself. Even the stalwarts like PV Narasimha Rao
and M Chenna Reddy could not survive as chief ministers for more
than a few months. It is reflected in the tenures of the three chief

ministers from Telangana -- PV Narasimha Rao, M Chenna Reddy
and T Anjaiah. In the 54 year long history of the State, all of them put
together held that position hardly for six years, that too in four
installments. About the stature of the present day political leadership
of Telangana, irrespective of the parties, the less said, the better.

xii. The socio-cultural identity of Telangana, its traditions, customs,
dialect and idiom are always heckled at, hurting the self respect of the
people. The electronic and print media and the cinema industry have
been playing a significant role in belittling the people of Telangana
and their identity.

Deprivations of legitimate share in the fruits of development,
marginalization in the political process and humiliation on socio-cultural
front have reduced the people of Telangana to being second rate citizens
in their own homeland. They have to literally beg for their rightful shares
whether it is regarding development or polity. These problems can be
addressed only when the people of the region are liberated from the
present exploitative set up and have power to shape their own destinies,
i.e., self rule.

A Vertical Division:

The Committee must be aware that in the wake of ongoing movement,
especially after 9th December 2009, all the sections of the society are
vertically divided region-wise. Ministers are not in a position to work in

unison. Members of Parliament, State Legislature or local bodies are
unable to sit together. The bureaucracy also is a divided lot. The gulf
between the people of the two regions is widened and has become
unbridgeable. Inter regional mobility of people; including the people¶s
representatives has, become hazardous.

It is needless to underscore that the unity between two regions of the State
can never be a unilateral concept. It can happen only with mutual
confidence, respect, willingness and bilateral consent. It can never be
imposed unilaterally by force on the unwilling party. If it is forced, it will
have far reaching consequences.

An Inescapable Necessity:

The remedy, and the only one, therefore, lies in bifurcation of the
State of Andhra Pradesh and the restoration of status quo ante that
existed before 1st November 1956. The sooner it is done the better!

With Warm Regards,

Yours sincerely,

(K. Chandrasekhar Rao)
President

DEMAND FOR TELANGANA STATE
Genesis, Spread and Continuance

A Historical Perspective
The people of Telangana are once again restive, reiterating their demand
for a separate state. The demand of the people of this region for a separate
state is not a new development. It was voiced much before the formation of
Andhra Pradesh and continues to be raised even thereafter.

The reason for the opposition of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra
(metamorphosed to Andhra Pradesh) was fear of neglect, injustice and
exploitation in the enlarged state. It had manifested itself several times,
including the agitation of 1952 when quite a few young lives were lost. It is
referred to as the Non-Mulki Agitation. And the reason for their refusal to
continue in the present state is the actual experience of becoming victims
of neglect, injustice and exploitation. This resistance, intermittent yet
sustained, took and continues to take several forms including the upheaval
of 1968-69 when nearly four hundred people, mostly students, were killed
in the reign of terror unleashed by the state government of the time.

It should be noted in this context that the State of Andhra Pradesh was
formed not only ignoring the wishes of the people of Telangana but also
against a categorical recommendation of the States reorganization
Commission. Further, it was contrary to the expressed views of the tallest
leader of the time, Jawaharlal Nehru, who ridiculed the demand for
Visalandhra as an idea bearing a µtaint of expansionist imperialism¶.
(Indian Express, 17 October, 1953). The forced merger of Telangana with
Andhra to form the present state of Andhra Pradesh on 1st November 1956
was, therefore, an outcome of manipulative politics.

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) set up by the Government
of India in early 50s to examine the question of reorganization of states of
the country was not in favour of merging the Telangana region with the
then Andhra state. After a very careful examination of the issues involved
the SRC recommended:

.. It will be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if, for the
present, the Telangana area is constituted into a separate state

which may be known as the Hyderabad state, with provision for its
unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in
or about 1961, if by two-thirds majority the legislature of the
residuary Hyderabad state expresses itself in favour of such
unification.
(SRC Report: Para 386)

The Commission further recommended:

Andhra and Telangana have common interests and we hope these
interests will tend to bring the people closer to each other. If,
however, our hopes for the development of the environment and
conditions congenial to the unification of the areas do not
materialize and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallizes itself
against the unification of the two states, Telangana will have to
continue as a separate unit.

The Commission came to this conclusion after a dispassionate assessment
of feelings of the people of Telangana and the fears entertained by them.
Elaborating the reasons for recommending statehood for the Telangana
region the Commission observed:

i. One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also
seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally backward
people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the
more advanced people of the Coastal areas...The real fear of the
people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally
placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the
major partner will derive all the advantages immediately while
Telangana itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising
Andhras´.

And

ii. When plans for future development are taken into account,
Telangana fears that the claims of this area may not receive

adequate consideration in Vishalandhra. ... Telangana, therefore,
does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the
utilization of the waters of the Krishna and the Godavari.
Further,

iii. The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of
some magnitude ever since it was created; and in comparison with
Telangana, the existing Andhra state has a low per capita revenue.
Telangana, on the other hand, is much less likely to be faced with
financial embarrassment« Whatever the explanation may be « the
result of the unification will be to exchange some settled sources of
revenue, out of which development schemes may be Financed, for
financial uncertainty similar to that with which Andhra is now faced.
Telangana claims to be progressive and from an administrative point
of view, unification, it is contended, is not likely to confer any benefit
on this area.

(SRC Report: para 376)

It is also necessary, in this context, to note that the SRC cautioned the
nation against the dangers involved in reorganizing the Indian states solely
on linguistic considerations. One of the rational criteria recommended by
the Commission, while reorganizing the states, was:

«to reject the theory of µone language one state¶ which is neither
justified on grounds of linguistic homogeneity, because there can be
more than one state speaking the same language without offending
the linguistic principle, nor practicable, since different language
groups, including the vast Hindi speaking population of the Indian
Union, cannot always be consolidated to form distinct linguistic
units´.
(SRC Report: para 163)
These categorical recommendations made by the States Reorganization
Commission (SRC), elaborating the rationale underlying its conclusions,
and a clearly expressed opinion of the tallest leader of the time ±
Jawaharlal Nehru ± evidently reflected the hopes and aspirations of the

people of Telangana. Consequently, there was a strong wave of jubilation
among the people of the region.

But, the political leadership of Andhra State could not digest it as it was
longing for the formation of Visalandhra; it was almost crestfallen. The
primary concern of Andhra leadership was to bail out the infant Andhra
State from the deep troubles confronting it from the day one of its
separation from the erstwhile composite State of Madras on 01-10-1953.
Their eyes were, therefore, on the resource-rich Telangana without which it
was impossible for the then Andhra State to sustain itself. The panic that
pervaded the Andhra State could be gauged by the reactions and
observations of several top-ranking political leaders of the Andhra State
and the media, besides the opinions expressed by the Pradesh Congress
Committee, the Chamber of Commerce and the deliberations of the
Legislative Assembly of the Andhra State. A few of them (translated from
Telugu) are reproduced hereunder:

I. Reactions on the Recommendations of the SRC
Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao:

³If the formation of Visalandhra is postponed, it will never happen. It
is dangerous to wait for six years. The desire for separate Telangana
will be further strengthened, and then they will not agree for
Visalandhra. It will be impossible to get two-thirds majority in the
Assembly at that time.´
(Andhra Patrika: 02-11-1955)

Kasu Brahmananda Reddy:
³Creating separate Telangana state and then waiting for five years is
not a good idea. The necessity of getting two-thirds majority in the
assembly is incomprehensible. Why should we wait till the 1961
Elections are over?´

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:
³If not now, Visalandhra can never be formed.´

Vavilala Gopalakrishnayya:

³If Visalandhra is not formed now, it might become
impossible later.´
Kala Venkata Rao:
³If it is feared that the lands in Telangana will be usurped by
Andhras, a law can be made to prevent that.´


Andhra State Congress Committee:

³People of Telangana need not be apprehensive about any troubles
or losses if they join Visalandhra. There will not be any laxity in
ensuring their development and progress.´


Comments made in Andhra Patrika:

³There is no answer to the question raised by the leaders of
Telangana that if Telangana will not get any additional benefits
by joining Visalandhra, why should it join at all?

Benefits to Andhra if Visalandhra is formed:

i) A ready-made, well-developed capital city;

ii) Advantages on social and cultural fronts;

iii) Development of transport and communication facilities; and,

iv) Development of irrigation projects in Krishna and Godavari
basins by mobilizing resources from 20 districts of Visalandhra,
instead of 8 districts of Andhra.´ (Andhra Patrika: 04-11-1955)

Resolutions passed in the Andhra State Assembly:

On 25-11-1955, the then Chief Minister of erstwhile Andhra State,
Bezawada Gopala Reddy, introduced a resolution in the State Assembly,
which was unanimously approved. The summary of the resolution is as
under:

- We deem it our special responsibility to develop the Telangana
Region;

- We safeguard the rights of the region in the realms of employment
and education proportionate to the population of the region

- We ensure to them a fair share in the fruits of development in all
other spheres;

- All the resources that rightfully belong to the Telangana region will be
utilized for the benefit of only the people of that region;

- We will be very generous towards them;

- The people of Telangana have not asked us for any of these
assurances; and,

- All these assurances are given by all the political parties unanimously
in the assembly.

II. Financial Problems of the Andhra State

Andhra Patrika:
The financial condition of the Andhra State is not at all satisfactory;
nor is it likely to improve in future. There is no likelihood of paying
salaries to the government employees by the end of March (1955).


There is a huge deficit in the revenue of the State. It is not at all
possible to take up any new projects.

Now there is no possibility of using revenue receipts for
developmental works; nor is there any likelihood of it even in the
coming five years. Floating loans for developmental works has
become impossible.

Bezawada Gopala Reddy:
³Out of 22 crore rupees of revenue receipts, administrative
expenditure alone is eating away 20 crores.´

(Statement in Andhra Assembly: 15-09-1954)

³Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has
become a difficult exercise.´

³Now we are dragging on with a deficit of 18 crore rupees. We are
not in a position to pay salaries to the staff unless the central
government comes to our rescue.´
(Statement is Andhra Assembly: 05-11-1953)

³Wherever we go, the farmers are asking for irrigation and electricity
facilities. Where can we fetch them from?´

³Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very first
year of its inception.´


M. Bhaktavatsalam (Finance Minister of Madras):
³The sales tax receipts of the Andhra region are very negligible.´

(Statement is Madras Assembly: 31-01-1953)

III. Plight of Andhra State for a Capital City

Kadapa Koti Reddy:
³In the Andhra State there in no proper place to locate even district
level offices; where is the question of finding place for locating
offices for the capital city of the state?´

Tanguturi Prakasam:
³All our troubles will be resolved if we get Hyderabad. But how will
we get it? We have to think as to how to work for it.´


Comments made in Andhra Patrika:

- Visakha: Where is a road on which two lorries can safely cross
each other?

- Kakinada: Where are the buildings suitable in shape and number
required for the capital city of the state?

- Rajahmundry: Doesn¶t have the basic requirements.
- Bezawada: There are more people than the available open place.

- Guntur: Just sufficient for the people there.

- Hyderabad : The one and the only way out.

Y. Suryanarayana Rao:

³We have already spent one crore rupees on the capital city,
Kurnool. We are still spending. Even after spending so much, has
Kurnool town got a shape suitable for a capital city? Absolutely
not.´

³Andhra government employees are still in Madras as tenants. The
officials are worried about providing residential accommodation to
them. There is no hope of completing the construction of new
buildings for the Secretariat. In addition, the government employees
are worried about the educational facilities for their children in
Kurnool.´


³People are enthusiastically waiting for moving to Hyderabad.
Nobody is feeling the pinch of shifting the state¶s capital from
Kurnool.´

³We will assure the people of Telangana, if necessary, that their
positions in the cabinet and jobs in the government will be
protected.´

(Comment of Andhra Patrika on Sanjeeva Reddy¶s statement:
³This very gentleman threatened to remain in erstwhile Madras State
itself if the capital city of Andhra State was not located in
Rayalaseema.´)

³We faced many problems in the last two years. There are no
facilities for offices. If we have to wait for five more years as
recommended by Fazal Ali, Andhra State will have to face
innumerable problems.´

IV. Status of Industrial Development


³When compared to the other South Indian states, generation of
electricity in Andhra is not adequate. Consequently, no industry
worth its name could be established.´

Andhra Chamber of Commerce:

³In Andhra State, there are no industries at all.´

Bezawada Gopala Reddy:
³There is neither coal nor oil available in Andhra State. Electricity is
very expensive.´

P.V.G.Raju:
³Telangana has registered industrial development. There is scope for
further growth.´

This was the pathetic plight in which the Andhra leadership found itself
when the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) categorically
recommended to retain Telangana as a separate state. In all their
utterances and out bursts, there was not even an iota of mention
about common language, common culture or emotional unity of the
Telugu people. All their anxiety was to extricate the then Andhra state
from its miserable conditions. They were more interested in,

- getting a ready-made, well-developed capital city, free of cost;
- having access to the surplus financial resources of Telangana to
meet the chronic deficit of Andhra State; and,
- having control on the abundant natural resources of Telangana,
especially river waters, coal, mineral wealth, forest wealth and vast
areas of cultivable land.

Thereby, the slogan of linguistic unity and cultural identity became
and continues to remain as an empty rhetoric.

The entire scenario was aptly summed up by the then leading Telugu daily
newspaper, Andhra Patrika, in its Editorial. The paper dispassionately
reflected the fact that the resistance of the people of Telangana had a
strong base of bitter experiences. Some excerpts:
³In Telangana, voices are raised against the formation of Visalandhra.
These voices vibrated throughout the country during Non-Mulki Agitation. The
behaviour of government employees, who went to the Telangana region in the
immediate aftermath of Police Action, is responsible for this resistance of the
people of Telangana. They still complain that those employees behaved like
Mahmood Ghazni. The charge of the people of Telangana is that those employees
have plundered their region, and their behaviour smacked of immorality and
dishonesty. Therefore, the people of Telangana shudder at the very thought of
Visalandhra. The political leaders have not done anything to alleviate the
dissatisfaction, agony and anger of people of Telangana. Instead of soliciting the
participation of the Telangana leadership, for the formation of Visalandhra, the
Andhra leadership is imposing itself on the people of Telangana. The Andhra
leaders have not realized, even now, that it is not possible to lure the people of
Telangana in favour of Visalandhra by making Hyderabad the capital city of the
new state.´

Yet, paradoxically, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed on 1st
November 1956 as an outcome of manipulative politics.

The merger of Telangana with Andhra was, however, not unconditional. It
was facilitated by a number of solemn promises made and constitutional
safeguards given to the people of the region as a protective umbrella
against the possible exploitation in the enlarged state. These promises
were made not once. They were made umpteen times (and were also
broken umpteen times). Nor the merger of Telangana with Andhra was
considered eternal. Again, Jawaharlal Nehru himself compared it with a
matrimonial alliance having provision for divorce, if the partners in the
alliance cannot get on well. He said:

³An innocent girl (Telangana) is being married to a mischievous boy (Andhra). If it
works, it works. If it doesn¶t, they can take divorce.´

(The Deccan Chronicle: 06-03-1956)

As feared, nothing could prevent the successive governments from
exploiting this region in every sphere ± economic, political, administrative,
cultural and linguistic.

Promises Broken:

The Gentlemen¶s Agreement of 1956, which was an assurance of fair
play given to the people of Telangana to facilitate the formation of Andhra
Pradesh, was scuttled the very same day on which the state was born, by
the very same ³Gentlemen´ who were signatories to the agreement. The
result was a massive revolt of the people of the region in 1968-69
demanding separation of Telangana from the State of Andhra Pradesh. It
has come to be known as Jai Telangana Movement. The governments of
the time in the State and at the Centre then woke up and tried (or
pretended) to undo the damage done to the region.

The first step taken in that direction was the All Party Accord of January
1969 arrived at a meeting of the leaders of all the political parties in the
State, convened by the then Chief Minister Brahmananda Reddy. But it
was shelved in less than six months time.

Thereafter, a couple of packages were announced by the Prime Minister of
the time, Indira Gandhi, styled as Eight Point Formula and Five Point
Formula. When the modalities of giving effect to these packages were
being worked out, the Supreme Court of India gave a historic judgment
validating, what were then known as, Mulki Rules. This judgment upheld
the rule of reserving employment and educational opportunities available in
Telangana exclusively for the residents of this region. But the political elite
of Andhra region did not digest these corrective measures. The result was
another agitation for a separate state, and this time for a separate Andhra
state. It is referred to as Jai Andhra Movement. The leaders of Jai Andhra

Movement demanded either scrapping of all the safeguards given to the
people of Telangana including the judgment of Supreme Court of India on
the validity of Mulki Rules, or bifurcating Andhra Pradesh into Andhra and
Telangana states. It may not be out of place to recall that Venkaiah Naidu
and Chandrababu Naidu, among others, were in the forefront of Jai Andhra
Movement.

The Government of India yielded to the pressure of political might and
money power of the majority region and nullified, by an act of Parliament,
almost all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana including the
annulment of judgment of the highest judicial authority of the country on
Mulki Rules.

As an alternative, the so-called Six Point Formula, a diluted form of
safeguards, was foisted on the people. Even this formula has been, and
continues to be, violated with impunity, robbing the people of Telangana of
whatever little was left in the name of safeguards.

All these exercises ultimately turned out to be futile as they were, at best,
attempts to treat the symptoms rather than the malady. Consequently, the
exploitation of the region and its people continued (and still continues)
unabated under the patronage of political leadership, irrespective of the
region it hailed from and irrespective of the party it belonged to. In this
process the so called concept of Telugu Brotherhood has become
irrelevant, placing the people of Telangana in an extremely unenviable
position.

Deprived of their legitimate share in the fruits of development,
marginalized in the political process and administrative setup,
belittled on the cultural and linguistic fronts they are virtually reduced
to the status of second-rate citizens in their own homeland.

Therefore, the demand for a separate state continues to persist.

Telangana on UPA Agenda (2004)

When the UPA Government came to power at the national level after the
general elections held in 2004, the following commitment was made in its
Common Minimum Programme (CMP) regarding the formation of
Telangana State:

The demand for formation of Telangana State to be considered at an
appropriate time after consultations and consensus.

It had the approval of all the 13 constituent parties of the UPA Government,
besides the four parties of the Left Front, supporting the Government from
outside.

This item was mentioned by the President of India in his address to the
joint session of Parliament held on 7th June 2004.

In order to initiate the follow-up action for arriving at consensus in this
regard, a sub-committee of the UPA was constituted under the
Chairmanship of Pranab Mukerjee. Consequently, Pranab Mukherjee wrote
letters to all the political parties having representation in the Parliament,
seeking their opinion on the formation of Telangana State. The responses
received from different political parties clearly indicate an overwhelming
support for the formation of Telangana State. A brief analysis is given
hereunder:

Parties of the UPA Government:

Thirteen Parties constituted the UPA Government when it came to power.
They were: Congress Party, RJD, DMK, NCP, PMK, JMM, TRS, Lok
Janshakthi Party, MDMK, Republican Party of India, J&K People¶s
Democratic Party, Indian Union Muslim League and Kerala Congress. Out
of them, 11 parties gave letters supporting the formation of Telangana
State. The DMK extended its support orally, at the official meeting of the
UPA held in August 2006. The Congress maintained that as the entire
exercise was being carried on at its instance, a formal letter from its side
was not necessary.

Friendly Parties:

There were 11 parties, besides one independent member, supporting the
UPA Government from outside. They were: CPI(M), CPI, RSP, Forward
Block, Janata Dal (S), Rashtriya Lok Dal, Sikkim Democratic Front,
Samajwadi Party, BSP, SJP (R), and MIM. Out them, seven parties,
besides one independent member, gave letters in support of Telangana
State. They were: BSP, CPI, Forward Block, Rashtriya Lok Dal, Janata
Dal(S), Sikkim Democratic Front, SJP(R). The stand taken by the
Samajwadi Party is not known. The CPI (M) maintained that as a matter of
principle, it was against the disintegration of linguistic states. But, it stated
that it would not come in the way of formation of Telangana State. The
Party made it abundantly clear at a meeting held on 22nd August 2006, with
the representatives of Congress High Command.

Opposition Parties:

There were 14 parties in the opposition, besides 3 independents. They
were: BJP, Shiv Sena, BJD., Janata Dal (U), Shiromani Akali Dal, TDP,
AITC, AGP, National Conference, Indian Federal Democratic Party,
Mizoram National Front, Nagaland People¶s Front, Nati0nal Loktantrik Party
and Bharatiya NavShakti Party. Out of them, 8 parties gave their consent
supporting the formation of Telangana State. They were: BJP, TDP
Shiromani Akali Dal, JD (U), Indian National Democratic Party, Mizoram
National Front, Nagaland People¶s Front and Bharatiya Navshakti Party.
Further, Shiv Sena, BJD, AGP, National Conference, besides 3
independents, orally promised to support the proposal.

Others:

All the five former Prime Ministers responded favourably on this score.
While V.P. Singh (now late) and I.K. Gujral wrote in their personal capacity,
H .D. Deve Gouda and Chandra Shekhar (now late) wrote on behalf of the
parties they represented. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in any case a party to
the BJP¶s commitment.

In addition, two more parties, having representation only in the Rajya
Sabha, also extended their support. They were: Swatantra Bharat Paksha
and Republican Party of India (G).

It is abundantly clear that the consensus arrived at, in favour of formation
of Telangana State was not only very wide but was also overwhelming. If
the UPA does not consider it as consensus, then what else could it be, and
what more is it searching for?

The UPA Government did not honour its commitment made to the people
of Telangana. Consequently, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) had to
withdraw from the UPA.

2009 General Elections and Thereafter:

During the 2009 general elections the Congress Party did not forge any
alliance with the TRS; but it was categorical in assuring the people of
Telangana that it was committed to the formation of Telangana State and
that it was the only national party capable of fulfilling the promise. Further,
most of the parties in the State, i.e., TDP, BJP, CPI and Prajarajyam also
were very categorical in supporting the proposal for the formation of
Telangana State. The TRS in any way has only one point programme. The
MIM, though silent, was not against the proposal. The CPI (M) maintained
that it would not come in the way if the state was formed. This commitment
made by almost all the political parties in the State made the people of
Telangana to believe that the formation of Telangana State was a certainty,
no matter which party or whichever combination of parties came to power.
As a result, all these parties put together, swept the poll overwhelmingly.
Therefore, the number of seats won by TRS ceased to be the sole criterion
for the formation of the Telangana State. Yet, the governments in the State
as well as the Centre tried to distort the electoral verdict. Under these
circumstances K. Chandrasekhar Rao had to undertake a fast unto death
from 29th November 2009, in the Gandhian and democratic mode of
protest.

This mode of protest evoked a massive response from the nook and corner
of Telangana region. In order to find a solution, the Government of India

asked the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to obtain the opinion of the
Congress Legislature Party on the one hand and of all the political parties
of the State on the other. The Chief Minister went through this exercise on
7th December 2009. The Congress Legislature Party unanimously resolved
to authorise the Congress High Command in the matter and assured to
abide by any decision taken by it. At the All Party Meeting convened the
same day, all the major political parties promised to support the proposal
for the formation of Telangana State and accused the Congress Party and
the State Government for delaying the process. These parties include TDP,
BJP, PRP, CPI, and naturally TRS. The MIM wanted a couple of days time
to make its stand clear. The one member Loksatta Party was ambivalent.
The CPI (M) reiterated its known stand. The minutes of these meetings
were sent to the Government of India by the Chief Minister. There was also
a prolonged debate in both the houses of Parliament underscoring the
need and desirability of resolving the issue immediately.

In this backdrop, on 9th December 2009, the Union Home Minister, P.
Chidambaram, announced, on behalf of Government of India, that the
process of formation of Telangana State would be initiated and an
appropriate resolution would be moved in the State Assembly. He also
requested Chandrasekhar Rao to give up his fast unto death.
Consequently, Rao gave up his fast amidst a wave of jubilation throughout
Telangana.

But, surprisingly, and also shockingly, the leaders of Congress Party, TDP
and PRP, hailing from the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions went back on
their commitment made in the official meetings to support the formation of
Telangana State. Some of them who are known for their vested interests in
the real estate business and investments in the corporate sector instigated
openly the students and the youth of the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions
to oppose the proposal for the formation of Telangana State. There was a
large scale violence and massive destruction of property in those regions.
The role played by even some of the members of Parliament and the
Legislative Assembly belonging to the Congress Party is well known.
During that period there was total peace and tranquility in the Telangana
region. In that scenario the Union Home Minister made another statement

on 23rd December 2009 that the Government of India would initiate a wide
range of consultations before initiating the process of the formation of
Telangana State. This had naturally created an impression that the issue of
formation of Telangana State was once again put in the cold storage. And
naturally there was another wave of protest and agitation.

In this context it is to be noted that in dealing with identical situations of
unrest in two different regions of the State, the State Government and the
law and order machinery behaved differently. It was very lenient and
considerate in dealing with situation in the Andhra and Rayalaseema areas,
while it has been, and continues to be, ruthless and repressive in dealing
with an identical situation in the Telangana region. Even the commitment
made by the Home Minister of India regarding the withdrawal of cases
registered against the Telangana activists from 29th of November onwards
is yet to be honoured by the State Government.

Under these circumstances, the latest clarification given by the Union
Home Minister on 31st December 2009 has rekindled some hope among
the people of Telangana. Yet, the people continue to have quite a few
apprehensions. Therefore, it has become inevitable to complete the
process of formation of Telangana State without any further loss of time.

Now it is abundantly clear that all the sections of society in the two regions
are vertically divided. Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative
Assembly, Members of Legislative Council, Ministers and Representatives
of Local Bodies of all the parties are divided into two camps. It should be
realised that the continuance of unified State of Andhra Pradesh has
become untenable. It will be possible only if people of both the regions
agree to it willingly. The unity cannot be imposed unilaterally.

What is to be understood is that the formation of Telangana State
means restoration of status quo ante as it existed on 31st October
1956. The geographical boundaries and the territorial jurisdiction of
the two regions were clearly demarcated and defined in the
documents prepared at the time of merger of Telangana with Andhra.
No new exercise is required on this score.

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
Telangana is a victim of plunder of its financial resources in the integrated
state of Andhra Pradesh.

On the eve of formation of Andhra Pradesh itself, Telangana was a surplus
area with regard to its Revenue Income and Expenditure, where as Andhra
was a deficit state.

Underscoring the dangers involved in the amalgamation of a surplus area
with a deficit state, the States¶ Reorganization Commission recommended
continuance of Telangana as a separate state.

Yet, the amalgamation took place because of the manipulative politics; but
it was not unconditional.

One of the conditions of merger of Telangana with Andhra was not to allow
diversion of Telangana¶s surplus income for the benefit of the other region.
But this condition, like several others, was observed more in its breach all
through.

Consequently, Telangana is lagging behind the other region in all spheres
of its development.

Whenever the question of formation of Telangana State comes up for
discussion ± and also consideration ± attempts are deliberately made to
create an impression that Telangana may not be a viable state. It is a
travesty of truth. The fact is that the financial viability of the very state of
Andhra Pradesh is dependent on the contribution of Telangana to the
State¶s exchequer. It might sound incredible, yet it is an indisputable reality.

Therefore, a glance at the pages of the past history, juxtaposing it with the
present day realities, becomes necessary.

The Backdrop:

When the idea of forming the erstwhile Andhra state, segregating the
Andhra area from the then composite state of Madras, was mooted, quite a
few doubts were raised about the viability of that state. Dr. BR Ambedkar
himself observed:

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State? Mr. Justice
Wanchoo had very candidly admitted that the annual
revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra State will be of the
magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. Is it possible for the proposed
Andhra state to reduce this gap either by increase of
taxation or decrease in expenditure? The Andhras must
face this question. Is the Centre going to take the
responsibility of meeting this deficit? If so, will this
responsibility be continued to the proposed Andhra state
or will it be extended to all similar cases? These are
questions which are to be considered.

Elaborating further the inadequacies of the proposed Andhra state and the
difficulties it was bound to face, Dr. Ambedkar said:

³Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it´.
Source: Writings and Speeches of Dr. BR Ambedkar (Vol)

Yet, Andhra State was formed on 1st October 1953 with Kurnool town as the
capital. On the eve of formation of the state a debate took place in the
Madras Assembly about, among other things, the financial position of the
proposed Andhra state. Participating in the debate, M. Bhaktavatsalam, the

then Finance Minister of the erstwhile composite state of Madras made the
following statement on the floor of the Assembly on 13 March 1953:

The sales tax receipts of the Andhra region are very negligible:

As expected and explicitly expressed, the financial troubles for the newly
formed Andhra state started right from the day of its inception! It is
discernible from the statements made by panic-stricken political
functionaries of the state government and the analyses made in the media.
To cite a few examples:

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, the then Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra state,
expressed his agony about the financial problems of the state on the floor of
the State Assembly as under:

Wherever we go, the farmers are asking for irrigation and
electricity facilities. Where can we fetch them from?
(25-02-1954)

Now we are dragging on with a deficit of 18 crore rupees. We
are not in a position to pay salaries to the staff unless the
central government comes to our rescue.
(05-11-1953)

Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very
first year of its inception. (25-01-1956)

Bezawada Gopala Reddy, the then Chief Minister of the Andhra
state, too expressed anxiety over the financial plight of the new state in the
following words:

Out of 22 crore rupees of revenue receipts, administrative
expenditure alone is eating away 20 crores.
(Andhra Assembly 15-09-1954)

He expressed similar concern outside the assembly also:

Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has
become a difficult exercise.


On the ongoing debate about the innumerable problems confronting
the then Andhra state, a reputed Telugu daily of those times, Andhra
Patrika, made these comments:

The financial condition of the Andhra State is not at all
satisfactory; nor is it likely to improve in future. There is no
likelihood of paying salaries to the government employees by
the end of March (1955). ...

(03-12-1954)

There is a huge deficit in the revenue of the State. It is not at
all possible to take up any new projects.

(09-02-1956)

Now there is no possibility of using revenue receipts for
developmental works; nor is there any likelihood of it even in
the coming five years. Floating loans for developmental
works has become impossible.

(06-07-1955)

It was at that time the Government of India had set up the States
Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in order to examine the question of
reorganising the Indian states and make recommendations there for. The
SRC, in its report, categorically and unequivocally recommended retention
of Telangana as a separate state. In this context the SRC elaborately listed
out the reasons for making this recommendation. With regard to the
financial soundness of the Telangana region vis-à-vis the chronic financial
deficit and uncertainty of the then Andhra state, the SRC made the
following observation:

The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of
some magnitude ever since it was created; and in comparison
with Telan- gana, the existing Andhra state has low per capita
revenue. Telangana, on the other hand, is much less likely to
be faced with financial embarrassment« Whatever the
explanation may be « the result of the unification will be to
exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which
development schemes may be financed, for financial
uncertainty similar to that with which Andhra is now faced.
Telangana claims to be progressive and from an
administrative point of view, unification, it is contended, is not
likely to confer any benefit on this area.
(Para 376)

Such was the pathetic plight of the erstwhile Andhra state! It was a real
hand to mouth struggle in the areas of finance and development. For
coming out of such a mess, all hopes of Andhra leaders were pinned down
on the formation of Visalandhra (the present Andhra Pradesh). But the SRC
was not in favour of unsettling the financial stability of Telangana for bailing
out the then Andhra state from its chronic financial instability.

A Conditional Merger:

Then, the Andhra leadership indulged in lobbying and manipulative politics.
Innumerable promises of protecting the interests of Telangana were made
in the event of its merger with the Andhra state. The national leadership
succumbed to the pressure of the Andhra leaders and gave green signal for
the merger of surplus Telangana with the deficit Andhra, subject to
providing several statutory safeguards to the people of Telangana. It was
made abundantly clear that the merger was neither unconditional nor would
it be eternal. The political leaders of Telangana (not the people) trusted the
national leadership and entered into an agreement which has come to be
known as the Gentlemen¶s Agreement. One of the important clauses of
that Agreement was to prohibit the diversion of Telangana revenue
surpluses to meet the deficit of Andhra region. The relevant clause reads as
follows:

The expenditure of the Central and General Administration of
the State should be borne proportionately by the two regions
and the balance of income from Telangana should be reserved
for expenditure on the development of Telangana area.

Violation of Conditions:

But the violation of this clause, along with several other clauses of the
Gentlemen¶s Agreement, started from the very first day of the formation of
Andhra Pradesh by the very same gentlemen who inked their signatures on
the Agreement. These violations included, among other, the diversion of the
revenue surpluses of Telangana to meet the deficit of Andhra region.
Regarding the quantum of Telangana revenues diverted to the Andhra
area, it was established by the enquiries instituted by the Government of
India and the State Government that between 1.11.1956 (i.e. the day of

formation of the State) and 31.03.1957, spanning a period of just five
months, more than 41% of the Telangana revenue income was diverted to
the Andhra region (See Table II) to meet its insurmountable financial
problems. And this illegal and unethical diversion did not stop with those
five months; it continued unabated. This became one of the principal
reasons for the revolt of people of Telangana in 1968-69 and reiteration of
their demand for separation of Telangana from the forced merger with
Andhra.

Telangana Surpluses ± Pre 1969 Scenario:

Consequently, the governments of the time at the Centre and in the State
were compelled to assess the quantum of Telangana surpluses diverted to
Andhra region for the period from 01.11.1956 to 31.03.1968. The first
exercise on this count was done by K. Lalit, an Officer on Special Duty,
deputed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (referred to as
Lalit Committee). Subsequently, the Prime Minister of the time, Indira
Gandhi, constituted a high power committee under the chairmanship of
Vashishth Bhargava, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India (referred
to as Bhargava Committee) to have a further look into the matter. Both the
committees came to more or less the same conclusions. With some
variations in computing the figures here and there, both the committees
clearly established that the surplus revenues of Telangana were transferred
constantly and continuously to meet the revenue deficit of Andhra area. A
glance at the figures culled out from the reports of these two committees
gives an idea as to the extent of damage done to Telangana region in the
integrated state of Andhra Pradesh. It could be seen in the following two
tables:

Table - I
Revenue Receipts of Andhra and Telangana
from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968
(Rs. In Lakhs)

% of % of % of
S.No. Year Andhra Telangana Total
Total Total Total

1 1956 - 57 1,450.01 57.00 1,093.88 43.00 2,543.89 100
2 1957 - 58 3,987.84 63.98 2,244.79 36.02 6,232.63 100
3 1958 - 59 4,085.05 60.50 2,667.18 39.50 6,752.23 100
4 1959 - 60 4,743.30 57.88 3,451.10 42.12 8,194.40 100
5 1960 - 61 5,176.53 60.69 3,352.36 39.31 8,528.89 100
6 1961 - 62 4,766.00 55.57 3,810.83 44.43 8,576.83 100
7 1962 - 63 6,027.51 57.22 4,506.55 42.78 10,534.06 100
8 1963 - 64 7,567.08 59.78 5,091.79 40.22 12,658.87 100
9 1964 - 65 7,780.57 59.14 5,375.91 40.86 13,156.48 100
10 1965 - 66 7,769.37 56.07 6,087.29 43.93 13,856.66 100
11 1966 - 67 8,681.33 55.21 7,044.00 44.79 15,725.33 100
12 1967 - 68 9,866.16 59.48 6,720.47 40.52 16,586.63 100
Total 71,900.75 58.29 51,446.15 41.71 123,346.90 100

Source : Report on the Quantum of Telangana Surpluses (Kumar Lalith Report) Govt. of
A.P.,1969

It is clear that the contribution of Telangana to the State¶s Revenue receipts was,
on an average, 41.71% of the total receipts during the initial 12-year period of
State¶s existence, as against 58.29% of the other region. It should be remembered
that the population of Telangana during that period was around 35% of total
population of the State, while that of Andhra was about 65%. It means that the per
capita tax effort was higher in Telangana than in Andhra.
Table - II
Transfer of Telangana Surplus Revenue Income to Andhra
from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968
(Rs. In Lakhs)

% of Revenue
Surplus Transferred
Transferred
Year Receipts Expenditure
to Andhra to Andhra

1956 -57 1,093.88 644.58 449.30 41.07
1957- 58 2,244.79 1,896.67 348.12 15.51
1958- 59 2,667.18 2,242.69 424.49 15.92
1959- 60 3,451.10 2,598.16 852.94 24.72

1960- 61 3,352.36 3,000.34 352.02 10.50
1961- 62 3,810.83 3,381.37 429.46 11.27
1962- 63 4,506.55 3,837.69 668.86 14.84
1963- 64 5,091.79 4,228.95 862.84 16.95
1964- 65 5,375.91 4,764.70 611.21 11.37
1965- 66 6,087.29 5,555.39 531.90 8.74
1966- 67 7,044.00 6,376.45 667.55 9.48
1967- 68 6,720.47 6,526.31 194.16 2.89
Total 51,446.15 45,053.30 6,392.85 12.43

Source : Report on the Quantum of Telangana Surpluses (Kumar Lalith Report) Govt. of
A.P., 1969

It is also clear that the diversion of Telangana revenue income to the
Andhra region went on throughout that period, unabated. During the very first
year and itself, it was a staggering 41.07% of Telengana revenues. During 1956-57
1967-68 it was, on an average, 12.43% .

The condition stipulated in the Gentlemen¶s Agreement was essentially
related to the Revenue Income and Revenue Expenditure and the resultant
Revenue Surplus or Deficit. It was not very much relevant to the
Development Expenditure. According to the norms laid down by the Planning
Commission and the Government of India, the major determinants of
allocation for development expenditure are: population, geographical area,
per capita tax effort and per capita income. At that point of time the
population of Telangana was more than 35% of the State¶s population. The
per capita tax effort of Telangana was higher and the per capita income was
lower, as compared to the Andhra region. On all these counts the Telangana
region was entitled to around 40% percent of the allocation out of the total
development expenditure of the State for that period. But, while computing
the Telangana surpluses vis-à-vis the development expenditure, it was
strangely restricted to 33.3% of the total expenditure. It was not even

proportionate to the population of the region; leave alone the area¶s higher
per capita tax effort and lower per capita income. As a result, the quantum of
Telangana surpluses determined was far lower than what the region was
legitimately entitled to.

Whatever be the figures arrived at, the indisputable fact underscored by Lalit
and Bhargava Committees was the blatant and constant diversion of
Telangana income to the Andhra region violating all the norms laid down, all
the safeguards given and all the agreements arrived at as pre conditions for
the merger of Telangana with Andhra. Thereby the colossal recurring
damage caused to the development of Telangana cannot be easily
assessed. It was aptly summed by the Bhargava Committee in the following
words:

If the amounts of surplus found which remained unspent in
any year had actually been spent in that very year or in the
year succeeding, the amount of development which could
have been brought about by such amount could have been
much larger than would be possible on 31st March 1968 or
thereafter. The obvious reason is that there has been a
continuous rise in the price level. The result of this rise in
prices is that, for doing the same amount of development
work which could have been done earlier, the amount that will
have to be spent after 31st march 1968 would be very much
larger« If these amounts had been spent in those very years
when they were available for development, the prompt
execution of the works of development would have given its
own return and that return would have further accelerated the
pace of development.

(Report of the Bhargava Committee)

These observations of the Bhargava Committee get reflected in various
spheres of development that has taken place in the Andhra region at the
expense of the Telangana region. For instance:

i) By the time the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed, two major
irrigation projects of Andhra area namely, the Godavari barrage at
Dhavaleswaram and the Krishna barrage at Vijayawada were dilapidated
and needed immediate renovation and reconstruction. The then Andhra state
was totally bankrupt and was completely helpless to take up those works.
The merger of Telangana became a boon for the Andhra region. The surplus
revenues of Telangana came handy to the Andhra bosses of the new state.
These two projects which were almost dead were not only reconstructed but
the ayacut was also substantially increased. These two projects put together
now irrigate more than 25 lakh acres in karif and nearly half of it in rabi.

ii) Had those surpluses of Telangana region been spent on the Sriram
Sagar Project, at least half of the Telangana region would have become
prosperous ± perhaps more than the now affluent delta region. The
construction of Sriram Sagar Project was deliberately kept in abeyance to
facilitate the diversion of Telangana surplus revenues to the Andhra region. It
is now more than four decades that the work on this project was initiated; but
not even half of it is completed. Out of 20 lakh acres of ayacut proposed to be
brought under this project, not even 5 lakh acres get irrigation facilities, that
too for one crop, even to this day.

Will the powers that be able to assess the recurring and cumulative loss caused to
Telangana on this score?

Who will be able to determine the quantum of compensation and who will pay it to
undo the colossal damage done to the region and its people?

Telangana Surpluses ± The Post 1969 Scenario:

The experience of the people of Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra
Pradesh was so bitter, during the initial twelve year period itself. In order to
prevent the recurrence of similar experience regarding the income and
expenditure of the Telangana region, it was reiterated that all the details of
the income and expenditure for Andhra and Telangana regions should be
shown separately in the annual budget of the State. It was followed for a
couple of years; but was given up abruptly without any valid reasons. As a
result, the Andhra bosses got a free hand to do anything to deprive
Telangana of its rightful share in the financial allocations. And everything
went on unnoticed, and is still going on clandestinely. It has not stopped at
that. On the contrary, the Andhra leadership has been arguing, day-in and
day-out, that the Telangana region is getting a lion¶s share in the financial
allocations while the other regions are foregoing their rightful share.
Ironically, and also sadly, the Telangana leadership never dared to question
this untenable claim of the Andhra leadership; obviously for its own survival.
As a result, the damage caused today to the Telangana region from 1970
onwards is much more than the damage done during the preceding spell of
12 to 14 years. The fact, even to this day, is that the financial resources
which legitimately belong to Telangana are being diverted for the
development of other regions. In the absence of related details in the budget
statements and lack of transparency in the functioning of the State
Government, one has to decipher the details from a variety of other
documents.

Rosaiah¶s Statement ± An Analysis:

An analysis on this count is made on the basis of the statement made by K.
Rosaiah on the floor of the State Assembly in March 2007. It clearly
establishes the fact that the revenue income of Telangana is more than that
of the other regions put together; and, the expenditure incurred in this region
is far less than its income. Rosaiah tried to camouflage the issue, yet he
could not cover up the stark realities.

The Details:

Five members of the AP Legislative Assembly asked the then Finance
Minister, K. Rosaiah, to furnish the region-wise details of revenue income and
expenditure for a period of three years. In reply to this question the Finance
Minister placed details on the table of the House, during its Budget Session in
March 2007. They could be seen in Tables III and IV:

Table-III

a) Revenue:

Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
Region
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07(Jan/07)
1. Andhra 2796 3494 3702 3690
2. Rayalaseema 730 867 1004 987
3. Telangana 5565 4725 5935 6093

4. Head quarters 5095 8311 9708 9319
Total 14186 17397 20349 20089
5. Others 3220 3283 4055 4980
6. Grand Total 17406 20680 24404 25069

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session ± 9

Table-IV

(b) Expenditure:
Year-Wise Plan Expenditure (Rupees in Crores)
S.No Region
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07(Jan/07)
1. Andhra 3848 3799 4532 3489
2. Rayalaseema 2150 2411 2684 2881
3. Telangana 5158 5546 711 5987
4. Head Quarters 706 893 976 682
Total 11862 12649 15303 13039

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session - 9

The statement made by K. Rosaiah Is analysed in two parts: one pertains to
Revenue Income and the other to Expenditure.

Revenue Income:

The region-wise break up given by K. Rosaiah is not only intriguing but is
also inexplicable. It is not clear as to on what basis and with what authority
he had segregated headquarters from the rest of the Telangana region. It
goes contrary to the established policy of the State Government contained in
Letter No 7193/68-1 dated 03.02.1969 of the Finance Secretary of the State
Government which inter alia elaborated the principles of computing the
income of different regions. The relevant extract of the Letter says:

The receipts accruing in the respective areas will be
credited to those regions while the receipts at the

headquarters will be credited to the Telangana region
except in cases where they specifically relate to Andhra
region.

Similarly the Finance Minister had not given the region-wise breakup of the
receipts under the Head µOthers¶. These two are evidently aimed at
artificially trimming the revenue income of Telangana. In spite of this
jugglery, he could not hide the fact that even if the income of the
Headquarters is not taken into account, revenue receipts of Telangana
continue to be far higher than the revenue receipts of Andhra and
Rayalaseema regions put together. It could be clearly seen in the following
Tables:

Table ± V
Region wise Brake up of Revenue Income
Excluding Hyderabad

Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
S.
Region 2006-
No 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
07(Jan/07)
2796 3494 3702 3690
1. Andhra (30.75%) (38.45%) (34.78%) (34.26%)
730 867 1004 987
2. Rayalaseema (8.02%) (9.54%) (9.43%) (9.16%)
Total of 3526 4361 4706 4677
Andhra & (38.77%) (47.99%) (44.21%) (43.42%)
Rayalaseema
4725 5935 6093
3. Telangana 5565(61.23%) (52.01%) (55.79%) (56.58%)
Total of
Regions 9091(100%) 9086(100%) 10641(100%) 10770(100%)

By furnishing these figures, K. Rosaiah had admitted that even without
reckoning the revenue receipts of the Headquarters, Telangana¶s
contribution to the State¶s revenues is far higher when compared to the

contribution of the other two regions, put together or separately as detailed
below:

Telangana between 61.23% and 52.01%

Andhra between 38.45% and 30.75%

Rayalaseema between 09.54% and 8.02%

Andhra & Rayalaseema between 47.99% and 38.77%

What more evidence is required to prove that the contribution of
Telangana to the State¶s Revenues is always higher than the other two
regions, even after showing the income of the Headquarters
separately?

If the incomes of the Headquarters and Telangana are taken together, and
rightly so, the contribution of Telangana on one hand, and Andhra and
Rayalaseema put together on the other, the position would be as shown in
Table VI:

Table ± VI
Region wise Brake up of Revenue Income
Including Hyderabad
S. Region Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
No
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Jan/07)
1. Total of 3526 4361 4706 4677
Andhra & (24.05%) (25.06%) (23.12%) (23.28%)
Rayalaseema
2. Total of
Telangana 10660 13036 15643 15412
with Head (75.95%) (74.94%) (76.88%) (76.72%)
Quarters

Total of AP 14186(100%) 17397(100%) 20349(100%) 20089(100%)

Therefore, the contributions of two principle regions of the State to the
State¶s revenues are as under:

Telangana between 76.88% and 74.94%
Andhra & Rayalaseema between 25.06% and 23.12%

If the region-wise details of Receipts under the Head µOthers¶ also are
provided, the contribution of Telangana is bound to go still further up.

a) Plan Expenditure:

With regard to expenditure the information given by Rosaiah consists of only
Plan Expenditure and not Revenue Expenditure. The purpose of not revealing
the details of Revenue Expenditure is, obviously to hide the fact of
overspending in Andhra region more than its Revenue Income permits and
also to conceal the fact of under spending in Telangana, in spite of a higher
level of Revenue Receipts in the region. In the absence of details of Revenue
Expenditure, an assessment is made about the quantum of Plan Expenditure
vis-à-vis the levels of Revenue Income. It could be seen in Table VII:
b) Expenditure:

S. No. Region Revenue Plan Excess(+) or
Income Expenditure Shortfall(-) of
4 over 3
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. Andhra 13,682 15,668 1,986(+)

2. Rayalaseema 3,588 10,126 6,538(+)

3. Telangana 22,318 17,402 4,916(-)

4. Head Quarters 32,433 3,257 29,176(-)

Total 72,021 52,853 19,168(-)

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session ± 9

The points to be noted here are:

i. During the period chosen by Rosaiah, Plan Expenditure in Andhra and
Rayalaseema is far in excess of the Revenue Income of those
regions.

Where that money has come from?

ii. During the same period, the Plan Expenditure in Telangana is far less
than what the Revenue Income of the region facilitates.

Where that money has gone?

iii. The Plan Expenditure in the Headquarters, for the said period is far,
far below its Revenue Income.

What has happened to that huge component of Revenue Income?
In which region and for what purpose it was spent?

Answers to these questions will show as to which region is denied of its
rightful share and which region is the beneficiary.

What about the Income from the sale of Telangana lands?

Another important factor which does not figure in the statement of Rosaiah is
the income, running into several thousands of crores of rupees, accruing
through the indiscriminate sale of Telangana lands, especially in and around
the city of Hyderabad. It is the common knowledge that a substantial part of
these receipts was spent, and also is being spent on the development
projects in the other regions.

Telangana¶s Contribution to State¶s Exchequer:

In this context the primary reasons for higher contributions of Telangana to
the revenue income of the State need to be perused.

The Sales Tax receipts and Excise Collections constitute a substantial part
(around 80%) of the State¶s revenues; and the Telangana region is the major
contributor to both these heads. To substantiate this position, region-wise
details pertaining to Sales Tax receipts and Excise Collections for a few
years, as an example, are furnished in Table VIII:

Table ± VIII
Region-Wise Breakup of Sales Tax Collections

S.No Region Collection Percent of Total Source:
Directorate
of 2000-01 Economics
and (Rs in Lakhs) Statistics,
1 Andhra & Rayalaseema 139,843.33 24.38% Govt. of
AP; Statistical
2 Telangana 433,796.29 75.62%
Abstracts
of the Years
3. AP Total 573,639.62 100%
concerned

2003-04
(Rs in Lakhs)
1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 179,211.75 23.48%

2. Telangana 583,902.25 76.52%

3. AP Total 763,114.00 100%

2005-06
(Rs in crores)
1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 206,983.75 24.26%

2. Telangana 646,370.94 75.74%

3. AP Total 853,354.69 100%

Table ± IX

Excise Collections in Telangana vis-à-vis the Total Collections in the
State
(Rs. In Crores)

S.No Year Total Collections Collections in % Of
(AP) Telangana Telangana

1 2008-09 5753.43 4077.45 70.86%

2. 2007-08 4056.86 2966.13 73.11%

3. 2005-06 3436.63 2460.63 71.6%

Source: Office of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of AP.

It is clear that the Sales Tax Receipts and Excise Collections together
contribute nearly 80% of the State¶s own tax revenues. State¶s own taxes
include, besides Sales Tax and Excise Collections, Taxes on Motor
Vehicles, Stamps and Registration. Land Revenue, Professional Tax,
Electricity Duty, NALA etc. This aspect is amplified in the following Table:

Table ±X
Share of Sales Tax and Excise Collections in the Total Revenue from
State¶s Own Taxes
(Rs. In Crores)

S.No Year Total Share of ST & % Of Total
Excise Tax
Collections (AP) Revenue

1 2008-09 33358 27605 82.75%

2. 2007-08 28794 23067 80.11%

3. 2006-07 23926 18904 79.01%

Source: Socioeconomic Survey, 2009-10; Planning Department, Govt. of AP

It is evident that the revenues from other taxes of the State Government
constitute only a minor part of the total revenue of the State¶s Taxes.

In addition to the State¶s own tax and the non-tax revenues, there will be a
flow of resources from the Central Government. These flows include,
among others, devolution of share in the central taxes and grants based on
the recommendations of the Finance Commission, grants and assistance
from the Planning Commission, funds for externally aided and centrally
sponsored schemes.

While determining the state¶s share in central taxes and grants-in-aid, the
Finance Commission gives sufficient weightage to the backward regions
within the state. Therefore, Telangana is entitled to a higher share in these
revenues as well.

All these factors clearly establish that around ¾ th of Revenue income from
the State¶s own tax revenues and non-tax resources is contributed by the
Telangana region. Regarding the share of Telangana in the flow of
resources from the Central Government, it cannot be in any case less than
50% if the norms laid down by the Finance Commission and Planning
Commission are scrupulously adhered to. The sum and substance of this
entire scenario is that the contribution of Telangana to the State¶s exchequer
is more than the contribution of Andhra and Rayalaseema put together.

Expenditure on Telangana:

But the vital question to be answered is as to what proportion of these
resources is spent for the Telangana region? There was a possibility of
assessing this aspect until early 1970s because of the condition to show the
details of region-wise income and expenditure, separately, in the annual
budgets of the State. The State Government abruptly and arbitrarily

abandoned this practice for the reasons that are so obvious. Therefore, a
different methodology needs to be adopted to make an assessment.

Under the alternative method, evaluation can be made not necessarily on
the basis of actual expenditure incurred, but also on the basis of targets
achieved in physical terms. For instance, in the field of canal irrigation it
could be a region-wise breakup of the extent of area getting irrigation
facilities through that canal system under major and minor irrigation projects
built and maintained by the Government. By any logic the ratios of land
under canal irrigation between the regions will also reflect the ratios of
expenditure as well. Similarly, the proportion of expenditure can be
evaluated by the number of units on which the government spends, such as
the number of teachers working in the institutions managed and aided by
the government, the number of students studying or number of seats
available in government funded educational institutions. In some cases
figures relating to actual expenditure incurred can be culled out from the
orders of the government issued periodically or sporadically to release funds
for various activities of the government.

By adopting this methodology an assessment is made to arrive at the ratios
of expenditure between Andhra and Telangana regions in certain vital
spheres of State¶s activity. In this context it is to be kept in view that the
population of Telangana is about 41% of the State¶s total population.
Geographically it covers 41.67 % of the total area of the State. The region¶s
contribution to the State¶s exchequer is substantially more than that of the
other regions.

a) Canal Irrigation:

The Directorate of Economics and Statistics publishes, every year, the
details regarding the area irrigated by different sources. Canal Irrigation is a
major segment and the entire expenditure of constructing major and
medium irrigation projects together with the canals and also their
maintenance is borne by the government. Spending on irrigation projects is
always a major component of the government¶s expenditure. It is needless
to say that distributive justice among the regions should be ensured in this
regard. But the facts and figures published by the Government itself are
appalling. During the year 2007-08 a total of 16, 10,000 hectares were
irrigated under canal system. Out of this the area irrigated in Telangana was
2, 22,000 hectares, i.e., a mere 13.79%. Even during the best of times, it
was, at the most, 18%.

Does it not mean that out of the total expenditure incurred on major
and medium irrigation projects, Telangana accounts for less than 1/5 th
of it?

b) Social Welfare:

The government spends huge amounts on social welfare programmes. Most
of these programmes are regulated through the white ration cards issued to
the people who are below the poverty line. The schemes include provision of
subsidized rice, kerosene, sugar, housing, pensions, medicare (Aarogyasri)
and so on. The white ration card has thereby become an important
identification card for availing of the benefit of these schemes. Now the
question is: What should be the number of cards issued in a region? It

should naturally be related to the population of the area and poverty levels
therein. The population of Telangana area is about 41%. Therefore the
number of white ration cards issued in the region should be at least 41% of
the total number of cards issued in the state, if not more, because of relative
poverty factor in the region. But the number of white ration cards issued has
all along been around 36-37%, according to the figures published by the
Government. Consequently, the loss to the poor people of the region could
be seen hereunder:

i) White ration cards 36-37%

ii) Subsidized Rice 37%

iii) Housing (Indiramma Houses) 33.85%
Sources: Socioeconomic Survey, 2009-10; Planning Department, Govt. of AP
Directorate of Economics and Statistics

Medicare (Rajiv Aarogyasri) Figures are easily not available: but situation
cannot be different as it also is dependent on the white ration cards.

c) Education:

i) Collegiate Education:

It is well known that the salary component paid to the teaching and
supporting staff of these institutions constitutes more than 90% of the total
expenditure. The region-wise details of staff working in such institutions and
thereby the extent of expenditure incurred on them culled out from the
official statistics for the year 2007-08 are given hereunder:

Table ±XI

Number of Teachers in Government and Aided Degree Colleges

S.
Region No. of Teachers Actual % Entitlement %
No

Andhra 8828 70.5 59.31
1.
2. Telangana 3709 29.50 40.69

3. Andhra Pradesh 12,537 100 100

Source: Statistical Abstract, 2008; Directorate of Economics and Statistics, AP

A look at the quantum of Grant-in Aid released by the State Government to
Private-Aided Colleges for the year 2008-09 throws some more light in this
regard. It could be seen in the following Table:

Table ±XII

Grant-in-Aid Released to Private Aided Degree Colleges (2008-09)

Grant-in-Aid(in Actual % Entitlement %
S. No. Region
Rupees)

1. Andhra 1,521,445,289 75.25 59.31

2. Telangana 49,89,60,900 24.75 40.69

Andhra Pradesh 202,14,05,189 100 100

Source: Commissionerate of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

This disparity has been there ever since the formation of Andhra Pradesh.

ii) University Education:

There are six (old) universities with regional jurisdictions offering facilities of
general education. The disparities with regard to Per Capita Block Grant
could be seen in the following Table:

Table ±XIII

Per Capita Block Grant to the Six Old Universities (2004 to 2009)

Per Capita
S. Block Grant
Region University
No
(In Rupees)
Andhra I. Andhra 35,500

1. II. Nagarjuna 22,700

III. Sri Venkateswara 37,500

IV. Sri Krishna Devaraya 25,000

30,175
Avarage per capita
2 i. Osmania 17,400
Telangana
ii. Kakatiya 14,000

Average per capita 15,700

Source: Budget Documents for the Years 2004-2009 presented to the AP Assembly

This has been going on for the last five decades.

iii.) Professional Education:

Cost-wise professional education, especially in the areas of Medicine
and Engineering is the most expensive component of the system. Every
additional seat enormously adds to the expenditure. The region-wise
expenditure naturally depends upon the number of seats available in every
region. Therefore, a perusal of region-wise breakup of seats in these courses
also connotes the ratio of expenditure. Tables XIV presents this picture.

Table ±XIV

Disparities in Facilities of Professional Education

No. of Seats
S. Total Andhra % of Entitle Telangana % of Entitlement
Courses
No. (AP) Total ment Total %
%

18,00
1 Medicine 0 1200 66.67 59.31 600 33.33 40.69

Engineeri
2 ng 3,760 2,625 69.82 59.31 1,135 30.18 40.69

Source: AP State Council of Higher Education

This has been the scenario, all through, not withstanding constant protests,
agitations going on in the State, demanding the separation of Telangana
from Andhra Pradesh.

d) Crop Insurance:
Table XV

Crop Insurance Fund Allocation for the year 2008 - 09
(Rs. In Lakhs)

SNo. Region Amount Released %

1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 77,897.33 97.23

2. Telangana 2,223.14 2.77

Total 80120.47 100

Source: Agricultural Insurance corporation of India
This discrimination is persistent; in fact, the Telangana region should get a
major share of this fund as the region is more prone to frequent crop
failures. What is important to underscore here is the audacity of the State
Government to pursue its blatantly discriminative policies even in the midst
of an intensified agitation in Telangana.
Table XVI

NABARD Funds 2008 ± 09
(Rs. In Lakhs)

Amount Allocated %
S. No. Region
1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 12,236.42 93.79

2. Telangana 809.72 6.21

Total 13,046.14 100

Source: G.O. Rt. No. 1845 dated 11-12-2009 of PR & RD Department, Govt. of A.P.

e) Agricultural Loans:

Table XVII

Long Terms Loans by AP Co-operative Bank (2006 - 07)
(Rs. In Lakhs)
Total Andhra % of Entitlement Telangana % of Entitlement
Loan (AP) Share Total % Share Total %
13,797.96 10376.25 75.20 59.31 3421.71 24.80 40.69

Table XVIII

Short Terms Loans by AP Co-operative Bank (2006 - 07)
(Rs. In Lakhs)
Total Loan Andhra % of Entitlemen Telangana % of Entitlement
(AP) Share Total t% Share Total %
314172.21 217354.41 69.18 59.31 96817.80 30.82 40.69

Source: AP State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

The cooperative sector of the State also is following the footsteps of the
State Government in denying the Telangana region and its farming
community their rightful share even with regard to repayable loans.

Conclusion:

These are only the samples. The situation is not different in other sectors as
well. The net result is that the Telangana region is contributing more
revenues to the State¶s exchequer than the other regions; and, in turn, its
getting far less than what it is entitled to in the realm of expenditure. It has
been going on for more than half a century, causing immeasurable damage
to the economy and people of the region. To epitomize it in one phrase the
region has been ³plundered´. It is nevertheless, not an unexpected
development. The SRC itself was prophetic by observing,

One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also
seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally
backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and
exploited by the more advanced people of the Coastal
areas...The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they
join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the
people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will
derive all the advantages immediately while Telangana itself
may be converted into a colony by the enterprising Andhras´.

What had happened later to Telangana because of its merger
with Andhra is precisely what was predicted by the SRC!

Now the questions before are:

i.) Will the powers that be willing to assess the recurring and cumulative
loss caused to Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh?

ii.) Will they be able to determine the quantum of compensation to undo
the damage done to the region and its people?

iii.) Who will pay the compensation?

iv.) Would it be possible to correct the situation and prevent its recurrence
within the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh?

The only answer to these questions and the only remedy to all the
maladies is restoration of status quo ante that existed prior to
1.11.1956, i.e., FORMATION OF TELANGANA STATE.

Education

Development of education affects and, in turn gets affected, by the pace of
economic development. There is a bidirectional linkage. In this process, low
rate of literacy and economic backwardness sustain each other. This is
precisely the problem of Telangana.

The forced coexistence of Telangana with Andhra for more than half a
century has thrown the region into a very unenviable position in the
realm of literacy not only within the regions in the State, but also
across the states in the country .

At the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh, it was assured that disparities
in the levels of development in different regions of the state, including the
field of education, would be removed in five to ten years of time. But even
after five and a half decades, the literacy rate in the Telangana region
continues to be lowest in the State. The region-wise details are given in the
following table:

Table-- I

Literacy Rates (2001 Census)

Literacy Rate (%)

Region Persons Males Females
S. No

1. Andhra 62.90 72.00 53.50

2.. Telangana 57.70 68.40 46.80

Andhra Pradesh 60.40 70.30 50.40

Source: Census of India, 2001

It is to be further noted that if the capital city with a literacy rate of 78.80 is
not taken into account, the literacy rate of nine districts of Telangana is less
compared to North Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, said to be the most
backward areas of the State.

In this scenario the Telangana region ranks 32 among the 35 States
(including 7 Union Territories) at the national level.

With regard to the literacy of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes of the region, the position is much worse, as is evident from the
following figures:

Table-- II

Literacy Rates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

S.No Region Category Literacy Rate (%)

Persons Males Females

TRS Full Report to Srikrishna Committe

TRS Full Report to Srikrishna Committe

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à TRS Full Report to Srikrishna Committe

Similaire à TRS Full Report to Srikrishna Committe (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

TRS Full Report to Srikrishna Committe