DEVELOPMENTS IN ANDHRA PRADESH

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

– A

1.1 Introduction

1.1.01

1, 1956. It was constituted with the merger of the large and predominantly

Telugu-speaking residuary part of the erstwhile state of Hyderabad with the state

of Andhra that had come into existence earlier after its separation from the then

Madras state.

The present state of Andhra Pradesh came into being on November

1.1.02

people of Madras state who wished to have a separate linguistic state

for promoting their own distinct culture. The state was formed on October 1,

1953, after the Act of Parliament (the Andhra State Act of 1953) received the

Andhra state was constituted as a result of the efforts of Teluguspeaking

President‟s assent on Septemb

linguistic basis after India‟s independence. At the tim

state consisted of the districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Kadapah, Chittoor, Nellore,

Krishna, Guntur, East Godavari, West Godavari, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam.

In addition, Alur, Adoni and Rayadurg talukas of the Bellary district were also

added to Andhra state. The first two talukas were included in Kurnool district

and the last mentioned was added to Anantapur district. Prakasham (Ongole)

district came into existence on February 2, 1970, by carving out portions of

Nellore, Kurnool and Guntur districts. Similarly, in 1979- 80, a new district

Vijayanagaram (now Vizianagaram) was created out of Srikakulam and

Visakhapatnam districts. Kurnool, which was the district headquarters, was

selected and developed as the capital of Andhra state. The Legislative Assembly

functioned from Kurnool and consisted of 196 members. The Andhra High Court

2

was set up on July 5, 1954, and was located at Guntur

keeping with the Sri Bagh Pact that had been arrived at as early as on November

15, 1937, between the leaders of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, in which it

had, inter-alia, been agreed

and the High Court may advantageously be in different places so as not to

concentrate all civil importance at the same Centre. Accordingly, it is agreed that

while the University may continue to be where it is, the High Court and the

metropolis be located in suitable places in the coastal districts and the

Rayalaseema, the choice being given to Rayalaseema.

University had been located in the north coastal district of Visakhapatnam

(Waltair). The details of the Sri Bagh Pact are given at Appendix 1.1.

er 14, 1953. It was the first state constituted on e of its formation, Andhra .1 This arrangement was in “that the location of the University, the Headquarters ” Earlier, in 1927 the

1.1.03

of the Indian Union following the Police Action by the Government of India during

September 13-18, 1948. The state of Hyderabad was kept under the rule of a

military governor till the end of 1949. In January, 1950 a senior administrator

M.A.Vellodi, ICS, was made the Chief Minister and the Nizam was given the

status of Rajpramukh. After general elections of 1952, the first popular ministry,

headed by Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, took charge of the state. The state of

Hyderabad, during 1952-56, consisted of the primarily Telugu-speaking districts

of Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad,

Khammam, Medak and the city of Hyderabad (including Ranga Reddy district),

the predominantly Marathi-speaking northern districts of Aurangabad, Bir,

Pharbani, Osmanabad and Nanded and the Kannada-speaking southern districts

of Gulbarga, Raichur and Bidar.

more than 50% of the area of Hyderabad state. Notwithstanding the same,

Hyderabad,

administration was neither English, nor that of the people of the state. The

The Nizam state of Hyderabad, in the meanwhile, had become part 2 The Telugu-speaking districts together formed during Nizam‟s rule, was the only native state where the language of

1 Khan, Md Abdul Waheed (ed.) Brief History of Andhra Pradesh- State Archives, Government of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, p 113-114

2 A.P. State Archives Research Institute, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

3

language of the courts, the administration and instruction in educational

institutions was primarily Urdu.

1.1.04

for creation of other linguistic states gained momentum. On December 22, 1953,

the then Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, announced in the Lok Sabha the

decision to set up a States Reorganization Commission t

and

Indian Union. Accordingly, the Government of India, vide Ministry of Home

Affairs resolution, dated December 29, 1953

Reorganization Commission”

and K.M. Panikkar as members, to examine and suggest a rational solution for

the reorganization of states, based on language. The Commission submitted its

report to the Government of India in 1955.

and interactions with various groups of people, is reported to have found the

public will in favour of linguistic reorganization. The rationale was that language

being the most faithful reflection of the culture of an ethnic group, ethno-lingual

boundaries would be considered the most stable and suitable arrangement for

the effective working of democratic entities and institutions. It was also

After the formation of Andhra state in October, 1953, the demand o examine “objectively dispassionately” the whole question of the reorganization of the states of the , appointed the “States headed by Justice S. Fazal Ali with H.N. Kunzru “The Commission, after consultations

perceived that the same would also have the advantage of ease for people‟s

interaction with the government.

1.1.05

“

have a minimum measure of internal cohesion. Likewise, a regional

consciousness, not merely the sense of a negative awareness of absence

of repression of exploitation but also in the sense of scope of positive

expression of the collective personality of a people inhabiting a state or a

region may be conducive to the contentment and well being of the

community. Common language may not only promote the growth of such

”3 SRC itself in the above context concluded in their Report: It is obviously an advantage that Constituent units of a federation should

3

4

Report of the Second Commission on Centre-State Relations – Vol. I, Evolution of Centre-State Relations in India, p. 64

regional consciousness but also make for administrative convenience.

Indeed, in a democracy, the people can legitimately claim and the

government has a duty to ensure that the administration is conducted in a

language which the people can understand

The States Reorganization Commission, accordingly, unanimously adopted the

principle of linguistic homogeneity as the basis to recommend the reorganization

of states. Based on the recommendations, the States Reorganization Act was

passed by the Parliament and came into effect on November 1, 1956.

.”4

1.1.06

“

on the future of Hyderabad. ………There has been a general demand, with

The SRC in its report also mentioned: further reorganization of States in the South is dependent in a large measure

popular support behind it, that the State should be disintegrated on the basis of

linguistic and cultural affinity.

recommended that:

”‟5 Considering the above and other issues, the SRC

(i) the Kannada-speaking districts of Raichur and Gulbarga be

transferred to the then Mysore State (the proposed Karnataka

State),

(ii)

State;

Commission‟s recommendation was that

the Marathwada districts should also be detached from Hyderabad and as for the primarily Telugu speaking areas, the

(iii) the residuary State of Hyderabad might unite with Andhra after the

General Elections likely to be held in about 1961, if by a two-thirds

majority the Legislature of Hyderabad State expresses itself in

favour of such a unification.

The SRC also recommended that the residuary state should continue to be

known as Hyderabad state and should consist of Telugu-speaking districts of the

then princely state of Hyderabad, namely, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal

(including Khammam), Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad, Hyderabad and Medak,

along with Bidar district, and the Munagala enclave in the Nalgonda district

belonging to the Krishna district of Andhra.

4 SRC Report, p.142

5 SRC Report, p. 359-360

6 SRC,Recommendation No. 4, p. 257

7 SRC Report, Para.4, p. 257

6 7

5

1.1.07

part of Hyderabad, had clearly given an indication that, at that point of time in

1955, it was not sure as to whether its immediate merger or unification with

Andhra was the best or most satisfactory answer and that is why it wanted

enough time to be given to the people of Hyderabad to think about the matter

and determine their future after the general elections that were likely to be held

after six years or so. Even in the detailed discussion on the subject, the

Commission expressed different viewpoints in its report, giving several pros and

cons of the two possibilities, such as:-

The SRC, with the above recommendation regarding the residuary

i)

individuals and public bodies, both in Andhra and Telangana, have

been passionately attached over a long period of time, and unless

there are strong reasons to the contrary, this sentiment is entitled

to consideration

ii)

Krishna and Godavari rivers will thereby be brought under unified

control. The Krishna and Godavari projects rank amongst the most

ambitious in India. They have been formulated after prolonged

The creation of Vishalandhra is an ideal to which numerous .8 Another advantage of Vishalandhra will be that the development of

period of inactivity,…. Since Telangana as part of Vishalandhra will

benefit both directly and indirectly from this development, there is a

great deal to be said for its amalgamation with the Andhra

State.

iii)

impressive. The considerations which have been urged in favour of

a separate Telangana State are, however, not such as may be

lightly brushed aside

iv)

seems to be the apprehension felt by the educationally-backward

people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by

9(Para 372 : page 104) The case for Vishalandhra thus rests on arguments which are . (Para 375: page 105) One of the principal causes of opposition to Vishalandhra also

8 SRC Report, Para 375

9 SRC Report, Para 378, p 105

6

the more advanced people of the coastal area. In the Telangana

district outside the city of Hyderabad education is woefully

backward……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 coastal Andhra.

The full text of the debate on this issue in the Report of the States

Reorganisation Commission (Paras 359 to 393) is given at Appendix 1.2.

1.1.08

districts of the composite Hyderabad state, as mentioned in para 1.1.06, were

merged with the then Bombay state, the Kannada-speaking districts of Gulbarga,

Raichur and also Bidar were included in the then Mysore state.

Following the States Reorganization Act, while the Marathi-speaking

1.1.09

the parliamentary debates during 1953-1955, sentiments were expressed by

members of parliament representing the erstwhile state of Hyderabad, in favour

of unification of all the Telugu-speaking areas of both Andhra state and erstwhile

Hyderabad state. Even stronger expressions were in favour of Hyderabad to be

considered and made the capital in place of Kurnool. To quote a few, Shri Heda,

MP from Nizamabad, on August 19, 1953, while speaking on the Andhra State Bill

mentioned in the Lok Sabha:

In the meanwhile, from the time of formation of Andhra state, in

“

is no single town, which, I think, would be worth calling even a

district centre. Fortunately, in Hyderabad, we have got a

readymade capital, one of the best cities in the whole of India, very

good cement roads, many buildings and all the amenities of city

life. Therefore, if a decision about Hyderabad city could have been

taken, Hyderabad city would have been a very easy and ready

capital and so many difficulties and hurdles would have been easily

Unfortunately, in the whole of Andhra, that is the 11 districts there

overcome……….

If Hyderabad is going to be the future capital of Vishal Andhra, why

not create those links; why not develop those links which are

7

already there and thereby facilitate the future location of your

capital? That is my point

Shri M.R.Krishna, MP from Karimnagar, talking on the same Bill on August 19,

1953, mentioned on similar lines:

………”

“

located somewhere outside Hyderabad, then, after some time when

the Government of India decides that Hyderabad should be

disintegrated, it would create more problems for the people of

Hyderabad who have been all the time patiently hearing and acting

on the advice of the Central Government. Therefore, I would say

that instead of locating the temporary capital outside Hyderabad,

Hyderabad should be immediately disintegrated and the capital

should

Shri Krishnacharya Joshi, M.P. from Yadagiri, in the same session mentioned:

I would like to say that if the temporary capital of Andhra is be located in Hyderabad.”

“

and the 8 districts of Telangana integrated with the Andhra State,

the Andhra State will remain incomplete.

In other words, the expression was largely in favour of Hyderabad city (not

Kurnool) to function as the capital of the Andhra state, with the unification of the

Telugu-speaking areas, looking possible in not too distant a future. While these

views had been expressed in the Parliament in 1953, in the Telangana

convention held in November, 1955, at Secunderabad, Harishchandra Heda, MP,

changed his earlier position and strongly supported the formation of a separate

Telangana state on a permanent basis. In the resolution so passed at this

convention after a long debate, besides the known Telangana protagonists K.V.

Ranga Reddy and M. Chenna Reddy, Heda was supported by several other

senior Congress leaders, such as APCC President J.V.Narasinga Rao, Ahmed

Mohiuddin, MP, M. Hanumantha Rao and the like.

Many people hold the view that unless Hyderabad is disintegrated …………………….”

1.1.10

state for a long time, and more so, since the time the national leadership had

agreed in principle on formation of Andhra state in 1946. Towards this end, an

8

organization called Vishalandhra Mahasabha was formed in 1949 by the leaders

of Andhra area. This also had the support of a sizeable section of Teluguspeaking

people of the Hyderabad state. In fact, the idea of Vishalandhra had

originated in Circar districts as early as in 1937. The Andhra Congress Swarajya

Party aimed at formation of Andhra province for all Telugu areas, including

Telangana. The Working Committee of Andhra Mahasabha, in October, 1942,

had resolved in favour of Vishalandhra. The advent of Independence and

accession of Hyderabad to the Indian Union in 1948 gave an impetus to the

demand of Vishalandhra. Shri A. Kaleswara Rao (who later became the Speaker

of Andhra Pradesh Assembly) formed the Vishalandhra Mahasabha in November

1949, ten days after the Congress Working Committee recommended steps for

formation of an Andhra Province. The Standing Committee of Vishalandhra

Mahasabha met at Warangal in February 1950 and demanded the immediate

formation of a separate Andhra state, the disintegration of Hyderabad state and

the constitution of Vishalandhra state with Hyderabad as capital. About a month

later, the Hyderabad State Congress unanimously demanded the disintegration of

Hyderabad and merger of three areas, namely, Telangana, Marathwada and

Karnataka in the adjoining linguistic provinces.

intensified in 1953 with the decision of the Government of India on the formation

of Andhra state. Notwithstanding the same, there was also a counter-sentiment

in the Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad state for retaining their independent

identity. During this period, Pt. Nehru had also initially spoken in favour of

retaining a separate state of Hyderabad and this encouraged the protagonists of

independent Telugu-speaking Hyderabad state to intensify their efforts for this

cause. Accordingly, SRC became a platform, for both the opponents and the

supporters of unification, for submitting their respective viewpoints, which was

done very effectively. It is believed that, this is why the SRC could not decide

the status of Hyderabad, one way or the other. The SRC report, simultaneously

favouring the separate residuary Hyderabad state as well as mentioning

There had been a strong sentiment for the unified Telugu-speaking 10 These efforts were

10 Rao, K.V.N. 1973 The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh, Popular Prakashan

also served earlier as a Consultant in the Research and Policy Division of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs)

(Sri K.V.N. Rao is a noted historian who had

9

unification, led to intensive lobbying by both the groups and both continued with

their efforts to achieve their respective goals. In the context of submitting a

Memorandum to SRC, the Hyderabad Pradesh Congress Committee under the

Presidentship of K.V. Ranga Reddy (who was for separate Telugu state of

Hyderabad) resolved in early 1954, that the future of the three linguistic regions

should be decided by the Congress delegates of Telangana, Marathwada and

Karnataka in separate meetings which were to be held in June, 1954. Of the

Telangana delegates numbering 107, only 50 attended the meeting arranged on

June 7, 1954. At the time of voting the next day, only 44 were present. K.V.

Ranga Reddy himself did not attend. Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, a Minister in the

Hyderabad Government (who was also for separate Telugu State of Hyderabad),

moved a resolution recommending the formation of two Telugu states, which

was carried by 31 votes to 13. The 13 delegates who opposed, urged the PCC

President that the Resolution should not be considered representative of the

Telangana opinion. The Hyderabad PCC executive felt that the integrity of

Telangana should be preserved in one Telugu state. The Telangana state, as

finally demanded, was to consist of the Telangana districts and some Telugu

speaking parts in the Marathwada and Karnataka districts and some portion of

the Bhadrachalam Taluk of the East Godavari district. However, at the Chief

Ministers‟ conference on October 22, 1955, Andhra and Hyderabad Chief

Ministers suggested immediate merger of Telangana and Andhra instead of

waiting for five years as proposed by the SRC. In this situation, the Hyderabad

Assembly discussed an official resolution on SRC Report from November 25 to

December 3, 1955. The trend of the debate was that, out of the 174 members

of the House barring the Speaker, who participated in the discussion, 147

members expressed their views. Of these, 103 favoured Vishalandhra, 29

favoured independent Hyderabad state and 15 remained neutral. From the

residuary states, 59 wanted Vishalandhra, 25 separate Hyderabad state and 1

was neutral.

1.1.11

the issue of “

10

views on the same were somewhat divided. As such, a sub-committee for this

purpose was appointed by the Congress Party. The Government of India,

therefore, while accepting other SRC recommendations, kept aside the decision

on this particular issue. Both Andhra and Hyderabad states were ruled by the

Congress Party at that time. (The two visits by some members of the subcommittee,

headed by the then Congress President, U.N. Dhebar, and including

luminaries such as Pt. Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, K.N. Katju and others in

December 1955 and January 1956 to Hyderabad state, led to the final decision of

the trifurcation of the state, but the sub-committee could not decide with regard

to the status of the Telugu-speaking areas

leadership of the Congress Party was divided on the question of merging the

residuary Hyderabad state with Andhra, with its senior leader Maulana Azad

opposed to such a merger. However, with the leadership from Andhra and a

majority of the public opinion from the Hyderabad state favouring unification, it is

reported that Pt. Nehru was able to persuade Maulana Azad, whereafter, the

central leadership took the decision for the formation of Vishalandhra.

keeping with the proposal made by both the Chief Ministers in the CMs

Conference of October, 1955, the Central Government thus became agreeable

to create the unified state. The leading protagonists of Telangana, like K.V.

Ranga Reddy and M. Chenna Reddy, both Ministers in Hyderabad state,

nevertheless, stuck to their demand for two separate Telugu states and

continued their efforts towards that end. At this point of time, it was felt

necessary that some safeguards be ensured in the interest of Telangana

and the exercise that was made in this regard resulted in an Agreement

between the two regions. At the instance of the Central Government, a

meeting of the representatives of both the regions was called in Delhi, which

took place at Hyderabad House on February 20, 1956. The two groups were

represented by their top state leadership in the Governments and the Pradesh

Congress Committees in equal numbers (four each) from both the regions, as

given below in the text. After a detailed discussion in the meeting, a

The central leadership of the Indian National Congress decided that unified larger Telugu state” deserved further examination since the of “Hyderabad State”). The national 11 In ‟

11 Rao, K.V.N. 1973 Emergence of Andhra Pradesh, Popular Prakashan, p 300

11

comprehensive agreement on

the eight participants. The proceedings of this important meeting, as signed by

both the groups,

reproduced below verbatim (see also Appendix 1.3)

the “Safeguards for Telangana” was signed by all popularly known as Gentlemen‟s Agreement 1956, are

SAFEGUARDS FOR TELANGANA

Proceedings of the meeting held at Hyderabad House, New Delhi on 20

February, 1956:

Present: 1. Shri B.Gopala Reddy 2. Shri Sanjeeva Reddy 3. Shri G. Latchanna 4.

Shri A.Satyanarayana Raju 5. Shri B.Ramakrishna Rao 6. Dr. M. Chenna Reddy 7.

Shri J.V. Narsing Rao, 8. Sri K.V.Ranga Reddy.

The following points, arising out of the unification of Telangana and

Andhra, were discussed, and the conclusions arrived at are as follows:

1. 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. This arrangement will be reviewed after five years and can be

continued for another five years if the Telangana members of the Assembly so

desire.

2. Prohibition in Telangana should be implemented in the manner decided

upon by the Assembly members of Telangana.

3. The existing educational facilities in Telangana should be secured to the

students of Telangana and further improved. Admission to Colleges, including

technical institutions in the Telangana area, should be restricted to the students

of Telangana area, or they later should have admission to the extent of onethird

of the total admission in the entire state, whichever course is advantageous

to Telangana students.

4. Retrenchment of services should be proportionate from both regions if it

becomes inevitable due to integration.

5. Future recruitment to services will be on the basis of population from

both regions.

th

12

6. The position of Urdu in the administrative and judicial structure existing at

present in the Telangana area may continue for five years, when the position

may be revised by the Regional Council. So far as recruitment to services is

concerned, knowledge of Telugu should not be insisted upon at the time of

recruitment, but they should be required to pass a prescribed Telugu test in two

years time after appointment.

7. Some kind of domicile rules e.g., residence for 12 years should be

provided in order to secure the prescribed proportion to recruitment of services

for Telangana area.

8. Sales of agricultural lands in Telangana area to be controlled by the

Regional Council.

9. A Regional Council will be established for the Telangana area with a view

to secure its all-round development in accordance with its needs and

requirements.

10. The Regional Council will consist of 20 members as follows:

9 members of the Assembly, representing each district of Telangana, to

be elected by the Assembly members of the Telangana districts

separately.

6 members of the Assembly or the Parliament, elected by the Telangana

representatives in the Assembly.

5 members from outside the Assembly to be elected by the Telangana

members of the Assembly.

All ministers from Telangana region will be members. The Chief Minister

or the Deputy Chief Minister, whoever is from Telangana, will be the Chairman

of the Council. Other Cabinet Ministers may also be invited.

11. (a) The Regional Council will be a statutory body empowered to deal with

and decide about matters mentioned above, and those relating to planning and

development, irrigation and other projects, industrial development within the

general plan and recruitment to services in so far as they relate to Telangana

area. If there is difference of opinion between the views of the Regional Council

and the Government of the state, a reference may be made to the Government

of India for final decision.

13

(b) Unless revised by agreement earlier, this arrangement will be

reviewed at the end of ten years.

12. The Cabinet will consist of members proportionately 60:40 per cent for

Andhra and Telangana respectively. Out of the 40 per cent Telangana Ministers,

one will be a Muslim from Telangana.

13. If the Chief Minister is from Andhra, the Deputy Chief Minister will be

from Telangana and Vice versa. Two out of the following portfolios will be

assigned to Ministers from Telangana:

(a) Home (b) Finance (c) Revenue (d) Planning and Development and (e)

Commerce and Industry.

14. The H.P.C.C. President desires that the P.C.C. should be separate for

Telangana up to the end of 1962. A.P.C.C. President has no objection.

The above agreement was arrived at on February 20, 1956. It was

signed by

1. B.Gopala Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra;

2. N.Sanjeeva Reddy, Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra;

3. G.Latchanna, Minister in the Andhra Cabinet & Leader of the Krishikar

Lok Party - a constituent of the United Congress Front which

contested the Andhra elections (1955) and formed the Ministry;

4. A.Satyanarayana Raju, President, Andhra Provincial Congress

Committee;

5. B.Ramakrishna Rao, Chief Minister, Hyderabad;

6. K.V.Ranga Reddy, Minister, Hyderabad;

7. Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, Minister, Hyderabad; and

8. J.V.Narsinga Rao, President, Hyderabad Provincial Congress

Committee.

The agreement has been recorded in a book,

BETRAYAL

Chief Minister, who was also one of the signatories to the agreement in which he

has recorded the following:

„THE STRUGGLE AND THE the Telangana story‟ written by K.V. Ranga Reddy, the then Deputy

All those above points

Gentlemen

14

(meaning thereby the points covered in the ‟s Agreement) were agreed upon in meeting held as above on 20th

February, 1956. We have today further discussed about the two following

points, on which agreement could not be arrived at:

(1) The name of the new state

that the name of Andhra Telangana (as proposed in the draft bill) be retained,

while the Andhra representatives wanted that Andhra Pradesh, as amended by

the Joint Selection Committee, be retained.

(2) Regarding the High Court, the Telangana representatives wanted that

there should be a bench at Guntur, with the principal seat at Hyderabad, while

the Andhra representatives desired that there should be no bench at Guntur and

the entire High Court be located only at Hyderabad. (

States Reorganization Act had already provided satisfaction with regard to the

location of Benches of the High Court.)

Subsequently, a note on the safeguards proposed for Telangana area providing,

inter-alia, for the constitution and functions of a regional committee of the

Legislative Assembly of the Andhra Pradesh state was laid before the Parliament,

in the Lok Sabha, on August 10, 1956. Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Regional

Committee Order, 1958, as approved by the President of India, under Clause 1

of Article 371 of the Constitution to give effect to this scheme embodied in the

said note, was issued on February 1, 1958. Copy of the note referred to above

is reproduced below verbatim (see also Appendix 1.4)

– the Telangana representatives wanted It may be noted that the

A. Regional Standing Committee

1. There will be one legislature for the whole of the Andhra Pradesh state,

which will be the sole law-making body for the entire state, and there will be

one Governor for the state, aided and advised by a Council of Ministers,

responsible to the state Assembly for the entire field of administration.

2. For a more convenient transaction of business of the Government with

regard to some specified matters, the Telangana area will be treated as a

region.

3. For the Telangana region, there will be a regional standing committee of

the State Assembly consisting of the members of the State Assembly belonging

15

to that region, including the ministers from the region, but not including the

Chief Minister.

4. Legislation relating to specified matters will be referred to the Regional

Committee. In respect of specified matters proposals may also be made by the

Regional Committee to the state Government for legislation, or with regard to

questions of general policy not involving any financial commitments other than

expenditure of a routine and incidental character.

5. The advice tendered by the Regional Committee will normally be accepted

by the Government and the State Legislature. In case of difference of opinion,

reference will be made to the Governor, whose decision will be final and binding.

6. The regional committee will deal with the following matters:-

i) Development and economic planning within the framework of the

general development plans and policies formulated by the State

Legislature;

ii) Local Self-Government, that is to say, the constitutional powers of

Municipal Corporations, Improvement Trusts, District Boards, and other

district authorities for the purpose of local self-Government or village

administration;

iii) Public Health and sanitation, local hospitals and dispensaries;

iv) Primary and Secondary education;

v)

Telangana region;

Regulation of admissions to the educational institutions in the

vi)

vii)

viii)

ix)

Unless revised by agreement earlier, this arrangement will be reviewed after ten

years.

Prohibition; Sale of agricultural land; Cottage and Small Scale Industries; and Agriculture, Co-operative Societies, Markets and Fairs.

B. Domicile Rules

A temporary provision will be made to ensure that for a period of five

years, Telangana is regarded as a unit, as far as recruitment to subordinate

16

services in the area is concerned; posts borne on the cadre of these services

may be reserved for being filled by persons who satisfy the domicile conditions

as prescribed under the existing Hyderabad Rules.

C. The position of Urdu

The Government of India would advise the State Government to take

appropriate steps to ensure that the existing position of Urdu in the

administrative and judicial structure of the state is maintained for a period of

years.

five

D. Retrenchment of surplus personnel in the new State

The Government of India does not anticipate any retrenchment. The

intention is that so far as possible, the service personnel from the Hyderabad

State should be automatically integrated into the services of the Andhra Pradesh

without any process of screening. Should, however, any retrenchment be found

necessary, the entire personnel of the services of the enlarged State will be

treated on an equal footing.

E. Distribution of expenditure between Telangana and Andhra Regio

Allocation of expenditure with the resources of the State is a matter

which falls within the purview of the State Government and State Legislature.

Since, however, it has been agreed between the representatives of Andhra and

Telangana that the expenditure of the new State on central and general

administration 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. It is open to the state Government to act in

accordance with the terms of this agreement in making budgetary allocations.

The Government of India proposes to invite the attention of the Chief Minister of

Andhra to this particular understanding and to express the hope that it would be

implemented.

n

In the book by K.V. Ranga Reddy, while reproducing the Gentlemen

and the constitution of the Regional Committee, the following is also mentioned:-

‟s Agreement

Note:

Items 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 are included in Andhra Pradesh Regional

Committee order 1958 First Schedule.

Item 4 is included in section 115-116 of States Re-organization Act, 1956.

17

Item 9 is included in Article 371 of the Constitution of India.

Safeguards

Item 2 to 7 are included in Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee order

1958 First Schedule.

Item 6 is included in Domicile rules of State Govt. and Regional committee

order 1958 First Schedule.

The remaining items are treated as terms of “Gentlemen‟s Agreement”.

1.1.12

the same would pave the way for good and equitable governance of both the

regions in the unified state. However, as future events would tell, nonimplementation

of some provisions of the Agreement, once again, led to the

agitations demanding the division of the state. As can be seen from the text in

sub-para 1.1.11 above, the Gentlemen

covered constitution and functions of a statutory Regional Council and various

matters in respect of Telangana, like services, development, sale of agricultural

lands, the position of Urdu, appropriate political arrangement for CM/Dy. CM and

representation in the ministry etc. Besides, there was no mention of a Regional

Committee. However, the Regional Committee of the Assembly was constituted

as per Article 371 (1) of the Constitution, to provide support for the

implementation of certain elements of the Agreement. This was one of the

major reasons for the early discontent in Telangana.

This path breaking Agreement was signed with the intention that ‟s Agreement, consisting of 14 items,

1.1.13

was arrived at. In the draft Bill of the States Reorganization Act, the name of

the unified s

view the point raised by Andhra leaders that, the name would underline the

differences between the two regions, the Joint Select Committee which went into

the provisions of the

was another point of difference over the location of Bench at Guntur where the

High Court was functioning. This was met with the provision of section 51(2) in

the States Reorganization Act, which provided for the establishment of a

18

permanent bench or benches of the High Court at one or more places within the

state, other than the principal seat of the High Court and for any matter

connected therewith.

Two other points were discussed subsequently and understanding tate was captioned as “Andhra-Telangana”. However, keeping in draft Bill amended the name as “Andhra Pradesh”. There

1.1.14

for the Telangana area and placed it on the table of Lok Sabha on August 10,

1956. By the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, the provision under

Article 371, for temporary supervision of the Union Government over the states

in Part B of the Constitution, was substituted to create, by order, Regional

Committees of the Assembly in Andhra Pradesh (and Punjab) and Development

Boards for the different regions in the then Bombay state, by special provisions

with respect to the states of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Bombay. The new

Article 371, inter-alia, empowered the President to create, by order, Regional

Committees of the Assembly in Andhra Pradesh.

The Government of India, prepared a Note on Safeguards proposed

1.1.15

Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, inaugurated the new state on November 1, 1956.

Thus came into being the state of Andhra Pradesh. The Prime

1.2 Andhra Pradesh (1956- 1973)

1.2.01

unified state, in many respects it continued to function as a political mix of two

entities, namely, the Andhra and the Telangana regions. However, in socioeconomic

comparisons, given the historical background, it was considered as a

mix of three distinct regions i.e. coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana.

Although Andhra Pradesh constitutionally became a geographically

1.2.02

Pradesh as a political mix of two entities caused and resulted in more discomfiture

than advantage as events continued to evolve. As discussed elsewhere in the

Report, the economic and political life of Andhra Pradesh in its fifty four years of

existence has shown different kinds of turbulence at various points of time.

During the first two decades itself, the state was rocked by two major

19

movements; o

1972

Telangana region and the latter in Andhra region, the impact of the two was felt

generally all over the state. A detailed account of these two agitations has been

given later in this paragraph. During this period, the effectiveness of the

Looking back, it can be said that, the identification of Andhra ne in 1969, popularly known as “Jai Telangana” and the other in , popularly known as “Jai Andhra”. While the former was concentrated in

implementation of the “Gentlemen‟s Agreement”

formation of the state, was also put to a test. There was criticism that though the

implementation of the Agreement cast some shades of illumination, but at the

same time, had many patches of darkness. Of the fourteen points included in the

Agreement, there were mainly three items which, were considered to be of

immense political and socio-economic importance and generally the focus was on

these three areas only. These items were (i) the political issues relating to

representation of Telangana in the power sharing structure; (ii) the socioeconomic

issues relating to the utilization of revenue surpluses/apportioning of

budget for the Telangana region and (iii) proper sharing of employment and

educational opportunities in the state. It may be worthwhile to mention here

that, the implementation of the Agreement itself started on a discordant note.

The political space in the institution of Deputy Chief Minister (or Chief Minister)

for the Telangana region was denied by the signatory t

Agreement and the Chief Minister from Andhra area, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy

(who became the first Chief Minister of the united Andhra Pradesh) in the very

first Ministry in 1956 by reportedly calling it an

hand”

times to come. With the passage of time, in later years, other issues such as the

sharing of waters and irrigation resources, land management etc., also became

quite contentious. Forced by the events caused by the discord that had been

created, in the second ministry which was formed on January 11, 1960, with D.

Sanjeevaiah as Chief Minister, this imbalance was rectified and Shri K.V. Ranga

Reddy from Telangana was appointed as Deputy Chief Minister. This arrangement

continued only for two years, whereafter, when Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy came

back as Chief Minister, he again dispensed with the appointment of Deputy Chief

, made at the time of the o the Gentlemen‟s ”unwanted sixth finger of the .12 This issue was to become a major sore point for Telanganites for all

12 Rao, P.R., History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh: From the Earliest Times to 1991, p 324

20

Minister. The arrangement of Chief Minister/Dy. Chief Minister got restored only

after the 1969 “Jai Telangana”

1.2.03

to the Constitution of India, 1956, in the form of Article 371, took into account

the

state, the important provision regarding the Constitution of the Regional

Committee. The relevant provisions of the SRC and Article 371 respectively are:

agitation. The States Reorganization Act, 1956, and the seventh Amendment Gentlemen‟s Agreement and included, besides the Constitution of the new

(i)

section 3 of the Andhra State Act, 1953 and the territories Specified

in sub-section (1) of section 3 of the State Reorganization Act,

1956.

(ii) Substitution of a new Article for Article 371- For Article 371 of the

Constitution the following Article was substituted, namely:-

371. Special Provisions with respect to the states of Andhra Pradesh,

Punjab and Bombay:-(1)Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the

president may, by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh

or Punjab, provide for the Constitution and functions of the Regional

Committees of the Legislative Assembly of the State, for the modification

to be made in the rules of business of the Government and in the Rules

of procedure of the Legislative Assembly of the State and for any special

responsibility of the Governor in order to secure the proper functioning of

the Regional committee.

Andhra Pradesh…..The territories specified in subsection (1) of

1.2.04

state got constituted in 1958. The Regional Committee of the Assembly was

believed to have been fashioned after the Scottish Standing Committee of the

British House of Commons with intentions of safeguarding the regional

interests. It had been tried earlier in Punjab (1957-66) to keep together the

Hindi-speaking areas having majority of Hindus and Punjabi-speaking areas

inhabited by Sikhs under one administration. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru

stated in Parliament that the settlement with the Akali Dal and consequent

establishment of the Regional Committee in Punjab had a relevant precedent in

Thus, a Regional Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the

the “Scottish Convention”

21

modeled on the practice obtaining in the United Kingdom

in the Gentlemen

to look after the political space, the implementation of development and other

related issues was not constituted. This has been noted in sub-para 1.1.12 also.

of the British Parliament and that the scheme was 13. However, as decided ‟s Agreement, 1956, the statutory Regional Council which was

1.2.05

elections to the Assembly from the Telangana Constituencies were held in 1957.

Since Assembly elections had been held for the erstwhile Andhra Legislature in

1955, before the merger of Telangana region with Andhra, the Assembly

membership for that portion of the Legislature was allowed to continue.

Following the formation of the unified Andhra Pradesh state,

1.2.06

in Para 1.2.04, and in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of Article

3

was issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on first February 1958. Copy of

the Gazette notification is at Appendix 1.5. The Andhra Pradesh Government, in

its Gazette notification dated March 13, 1958, reproduced the said notification to

the Government of India for constitution of the Andhra Pradesh Regional

Committee along with the modifications that to be made in the Andhra Pradesh

Legislative Assembly Rules. Copy of the Gazette Notification of the Andhra

Pradesh Government is at Appendix 1.6. Later events would tell that the

In pursuance of the decisions of the Central Government, as given 71 of the Constitution, the “Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee Order, 1958”

“

generally contended that, providing the agreed political space to the leaders from

Telangana and the establishment of the statutory Regional Council as an

implementation body, as enshrined in the Gentlemen

made a substantial difference in the historical growth of the integrated state,

besides economic development of Telangana region. Most delegations from

Regional Committee” could only play a limited role, at least till 1969. It is ‟s Agreement, would have

13 Kapur, A.C. 1959 Government of Indian Republic, in, KVN Rao, State Government and Politics: Andhra Padesh, p 115

22

Telangana region, which appeared before the Committee, raised these issues

adding that this was the beginning of the mistrust between the two regions.

1.2.07

spelt out in the first schedule of the Order of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

These were:

The Schedule matters that the Committee could deal with were

(i) Local self Government that is to say, the Constitutional powers of

Municipal Corporations, Improvement Trust, District Boards and other district

Authorities for the purpose of Local Self Government or village Administration;

(ii) Public Health and Sanitation; Local Hospitals and Dispensaries;

(iii) Primary and Secondary Education;

(iv) Regulation and Admissions to educational Institutions in the Telengana

region;

(v) Prohibition;

(vi) Sale of Agriculture Lands;

(vii) Cottage and Small scale Industries;

(viii) Agriculture, Cooperative Societies, Markets and Fairs;

(ix) Development and Economic Planning within the framework of general

development Plans and Policies formulated by the State legislature.

1.2.08

Regional Committee, it would be seen that the following subjects were not

included in a modified form in the Government Order.

(i) The important area

opportunities”

(ii)

any financial commitment by introducing the words

the overall financial arrangement contemplated in the Budget

Besides, there was a strong demand from Telangana for adding higher education

in the list of subjects included in the schedule, as it was related to the

implementation of Mulki Rules. These omissions also added to the discontent

already being harboured by the people of Telangana region.

23

For the purposes of comparison with the matters identified for the s of “services in the Government” and “employment were not included; “Development and planning” was restricted to matters not involving “is in conformity with „.”

1.2.09

discontent in service and employment matters and further covering financial

matters

over Telangana area with devastating effect. The agitation, the details of which

will be covered in the later portion of this para, spanned nearly a year and

ended in late 1969,

the height and course of this agitation, Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi made

a statement in the Lok Sabha on April 11, 1969, dealing with various issues

which had resulted in the violent agitation. In this statement, the lack of

understanding between the Government and the Telengana Regional

Committee, TRC (as by then it was popularly called) in matters including what

was then

Minister, in her statement, also stated

of development and the expansion of employment opportunities in Telengana is

accelerated and conditions are created for the balanced development of all parts

of Andhra Pradesh.

pursuance of this aim, the Central Government would appoint a Committee with

a sitting or retired Supreme Court Judge as Chairman and an eminent economist

with knowledge of state finances, together with a senior representative of the

Comptroller and Auditor General as members to go into the varying estimates

and representations and determining the surpluses relatable to Telangana, which

were expected to have been spent on the development in the Telangana region.

Accordingly, a Committee was appointed with Justice Vashisht Bhargava, Judge

of the Supreme Court, as Chairman and with Prof. M.V.Mathur, Director of Asian

Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, and Haribhushan Bhan,

Addl. Dy. Comptroller and Auditor General, as members on April 22, 1969. The

Committee was expected to give its report by end of May, 1969, but its time was

extended up to October 1969. In addition, to allay the fears of/instill

confidence in the people of Telangana with a series of measures intended to

ensure the development of Telangana, it was, inter alia felt necessary, based also

on the experience of the working of the TRC during 1958-68, to widen the

subject which the TRC could discuss and of the powers of this Committee in

24

respect thereof. Toward this end, on August 21, 1969, the TRC adopted the

recommendations made by a Committee of the Assembly on a motion moved by

J. Vengala Rao, then Minister for Home in the Andhra Pradesh Government. In

this motion, the Committee suggested, among other matters, that the

Presidential Order, 1958, regarding the Regional Committee (TRC) should be

suitably amended to bring in matters relating to principles and methods of

recruitment for securing equitable and adequate opportunities for employment

in Government and Quasi Government services for the people of Telangana

region; matters relating to equation of posts and integration of services of the

employees of the former Government of Andhra and Hyderabad; the Annual

Financial Statement insofar as it related to receipts and expenditure for

Telangana Region; and Development and Economic Planning within the approved

allocation for the Telangana Region.

1970, announced a series of measures, which inter-alia, included,

(i) widening of the subjects of the Telangana Regional Committee (TRC) and

(ii) enlarging the powers of the Regional Committee in respect thereof.

Accordingly, a Presidential Order was issued on March 7, 1970 under Article 371

amending the original order of 1958. (Copy of the Order placed at Appendix 1.7).

The following subjects were added to the first schedule of the original Order

(1958)

An agitation that began in December, 1968, initially based on called “Telengana revenue surpluses”, quickly spread like wild fire all came to be known as “Jai Telangana agitation”. During called “the Telengana surpluses”, was, inter alia, dealt with. The Prime “The overall aim is to ensure that the pace ” It was also announced in this statement that, in 14 The Central Government on February 18,

“

appointments to subordinate services and posts ( that is to say, services

and posts appointments to which are not notified in the Official Gazette

but including any service of Tahsildars) under the State Government in

Telangana region).

“

of the Telangana region in the State Government, Quasi Government

Institutions, statutory authorities and corporate bodies in the Telangana

region.

14 Vithal, B.P.R. 2010 A State in Periodic Crises-Andhra Pradesh, CESS Monograph 11, Centre for Economic and Social

Studies, Hyderabad

Methods of recruitment and principles to be followed in making the ” Securing provision of adequate employment opportunities to the people ”

25

The scope of some of the subjects falling within the purview of the Regional

Committee, as per the earlier order was enlarged to also include:

University education in addition to the existing primary and secondary

education;

Medium and Heavy industry in addition to the existing small scale

industries.

The following item was substituted under item (9) of the first schedule i.e.,

matters insofar as they related to Telangana which came within the purview of

the Regional Committee; viz:

“

Telangana Region as formu

The order also provided:

Development and economic planning within the plan allocation for the lated by the State Legislature”;

“

expenditure in relation to the Telangana region and rest of the State

(RoS) shall be shown in separate columns for facility of reference and

consideration b

The order also:

modified the earlier rule which has restricted the Regional Committee to

matters not involving any financial commitment by introducing the words

in the annual financial statement details regarding the receipts and y the regional Committee”;

“

the annual Budget or in the Five Year Plan pertaining to the Telangana

is in conformity with the overall financial arrangement contemplated in

Region”

In addition:

The Government was to furnish periodic progress reports to the Regional

Committee which would submit its views to the Assembly;

It was also provided that:

if the state Government was unable to accept any recommendation of the

Regional Committee, the Chief Minister would first endeavour to arrive at

an agreement by discussion with the Chairman of the Regional

Committee and the matter would then be referred to the Governor, if no

such agreement was found possible. The decision of the Governor shall

26

be final and binding on the Council (in this case committee) and action

shall be taken accordingly.

;

1.2.10

the Central Government also retained its initiative through the institution of the

Governor. The Governor draws and retains his responsibility in respect of

Regional Committee (TRC) under Article 371(1). The relevant portion of the

Article [Article 371(1)] reads:

For constitution and proper functioning of the Regional Committee,

“

with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or Punjab, provide for the

Constitution and functions of regional committees of the Legislative Assembly of

the State, for the modifications to be made in the rules of business of the

Government and in the rules of procedure of the Legislative Assembly of the

State and for any special responsibility of the Governor in order to secure the

proper functioning of the

Accordingly, the Governor would make an annual Report to the President so as to

keep the Central Government informed about the working of the Regional

Committee.

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President may, by order made regional committees.”

1.2.11

sort of legislative advisory role over the executive; albeit, it was restricted to

Telangana related development issues. Its professional role lay in assisting the

Government adhering to the principle of equitable distribution of the resources

and socio-economic opportunities within the state with particular reference to

adequately safeguarding the interests of the Telangana region within the

scope of the understanding arrived at in the

issues it was to address and has been addressing during its existence were

similar to those that the Estimates Committee or the Public accounts Committee

27

would raise.

held the view that (i) During the years it was in existence, it was exercising

effective and meaningful control over public expenditure, in respect of items that

fell within its purview by virtue of the statutory provisions (ii) The issues raised

by the Committee may have had a political background, but the Regional

Committee was professional in its analysis and presentation. Some other political

scientists and academics who were conversant with the working of the TRC and

of the time opined differently. Shri K.V.N.Rao, in his

and Politics

the decade 1955-68 was quite active in its deliberation and assertive in getting

safeguards relating to the schedules implemented. The fact that the Congress

ruled the State and had a majority in the Regional Committee did not make the

office bearers of the Regional Committee and its sub-Committees to play a

passive role. In the discussions of the Regional Committee, party differences

never mattered and all of them were unanimous in presenting the demands of

Telengana or pointing o

A. Narsimha Reddy

“

against the administration only after his assuming the chairmanship. Until 1968

the Regional Committee was inactive and later it emerged as an important force.

It provided all the material pertaining to the imbalance in development,

employment and educational opportunities in Telengana region. It created a hue

and cry in regard to Telengana surpluses. And above all, it lent the legitimacy to

the Telengana agitation in the form of r

K. R. Acharya

mentioned that:

generally held that the Telengana Regional Committee was not vigilant enough to

protect the interests of the region. It was further alleged that neglect of the

region was due to the attitude of its chairman, who raised the bogey of

In short, the Regional Committee was formed in 1958, to have a Gentlemen‟s agreement. The 15 Some professionals connected with state administration and TRC book “State Government – Andhra Pradesh”, mentioned that “the Regional Committee during ut the lapses of the Government.” 16, in his article “Congress Parties and Politics”, opined The Regional Committee consisting of Telengana MLA‟s nourished grievances egional imbalances.” 17, in his article on “Telengana and Andhra agitation” “It was

15 Vithal, B.P.R. 2010 A State in Periodic Crises-Andhra Pradesh, CESS Monograph 11, Centre for Economic and Social

Studies, Hyderabad, p 44

16 Reddy, Narsimha , 1979, in, Ramireddy, G.

Sterling Publishers Private Limited, p 237

17 Acharya, K.R. 1979, in, Ramireddy, G

Publishers Private Limited, p 510

et al (ed.) State Government and Politics: Andhra Pradesh, New Delhi, et al (ed.), State Government and Politics:Andhra Pradesh, New Delhi, Sterling

28

grievances when the political situation did not suit him and shelving it when it

was otherwise. The position and powers of the Regional Committee were

responsible for its ineffective functioning. All the legitimate grievances of the

region could have been met by enlarging the powers of the Regional Committee

by including planning and other subjects. The demand was, however, accepted

after a great deal of persuasion by the Central government and the powers of the

Regional Committee were enlarged by the Presidential Order of 1970, which also

included some additional items in the first schedule of the principal order of

1958.

1.2.12

68 dispensation, the scope and area that the Committee was called upon to

address was limited in many respects. For example, in the socio-economic

aspects, which were of primary importance to the development in the Telangana

region, the TRC had virtually very little to contribute. Service matters were not

included in its schedule. It had a restricted role in the area of education; devoid

of college and technical education; equally restricted in the area of heavy

industry. Needless to mention, that college and technical education and heavy

industry, having inbuilt scope for employment and development, are expected to

contribute substantially to development. Looking on the positive side, the TRC,

particularly after the widening of its scope, provided a legal base and source for

working out the Telangana surpluses and independent budget entries for the

coastal Andhra and Telangana regions. Differences in the technical approaches in

working out the Telangana surpluses led to the constitution of the Bhargava

Committee about which a mention was made earlier. The Bhargava Committee,

constituted after the agitation of 1968-69, was primarily to identify the Telangana

surpluses. Paradoxically, the 1968-69 agitation provided an opportunity for

Central Government to enlarge the scope of the Regional Committee. The

usefulness of TRC in the post 1969 dispensation and in the post Bhargava

Committee dispensation was in the realization of the need for apportioning

minimum shares in plan allocation for the backward areas and separate

allocation for the Telangana area which was applied in the Fourth Five Year Plan

(1969-74) allocation for Andhra Pradesh.

29

Given the totality of the situation, it can be said that, in the 1958-

1.2.13

could have been strengthened further in the post 1970 period. As events led to

the formulation of the Six Point Formula, the TRC became redundant and was

finally abolished in 1973. However, as discussed in the following Para, the Six-

Point Formula tried to address comprehensively the development of backward

areas in the entire Andhra Pradesh, involving all the three regions.

In a nutshell, therefore, professional opinion was that the TRC

1.2.14

educationally backward Telangana may be swamped and exploited by the more

advanced people of the coastal area (Para 378, SRC). To allay this fear, the

The SRC, in its report, had expressed its apprehensions that the

Gentlemen‟s Agreement had provided for an assurance that a temporary

provision would be made to ensure that for a period of five years Telangana was

safeguarded as a Unit, as far as the recruitment to subordinate services in the

region was concerned and the posts borne on the cadre of these services may be

reserved for being filled by persons who satisfied the domicile conditions as

prescribed under the existing Hyderabad rules (after the advent of the

Constitution, under Article 35(b), these rules had restricted relevance, both in

time and in content). All the privileges everywhere in the country were abolished

by the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957. However,

such restrictions in the Telangana region (in Andhra Pradesh) were saved along

with such restrictions. This was done to give effect to the specific assurances

given in the Gentlemen‟s agreement.

1.2.15

Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act in 1957. It repealed all

laws in force in any state or Union Territory by virtue of Article 35(B) prescribing

in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under

the Government or any local or other authority within the state or Union Territory

any requirement as to residence therein prior to such employment or

appointment. But in view of the special circumstances in the Telangana region of

Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Tripura, the Act empowered

30

the Central Government to make rules prescribing in regard to appointments to

certain specified services in the above areas, any requirement as to residence

within the respective areas prior to such appointment. In exercise of the powers

conferred by clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section (3) of the Act, the

Central Government made the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement

as to Residence) Rules, 1959. The rules required that specified categories of

employment in Telangana area should be filled up only by persons who had been

residents of Telangana area for not less than 15 years.

The Government of India, in pursuance of Article 16(3), enacted the

1.2.16

inferior services in the erstwhile Hyderabad Government should be filled up by

Mulkis i.e., domiciles of Telangana fulfilling certain conditions, were in force till

their repeal by the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957.

It may be noted that Mulki Rules, which required that superior or

1.2.17

repeatedly that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment

(Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959, were not being implemented

honestly and that non-Mulkis were being appointed to posts intended for

Telangana Mulkis. It pleaded for the extension of the Public Employment

(Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 by 5 years in 1964, and again in 1969.

It also discussed the question of promotions and proper preparation of integrated

seniority lists of the Andhra and Telangana employees. In a number of cases,

the Government took whatever action was possible.

The Regional Committee brought it to the notice of the Government

1.2.18

Hyderabad in the formative years, after the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956,

had created its own social tensions. Slowly, the discontent spread to the

government officials and unemployed youth, who got the feeling that they were

neglected and exploited by the domineering officials of the coastal Andhra region

and, particularly, the more enterprising people from the coastal Andhra area.

One of the main causes of dissatisfaction of the people of Telangana was that a

large number of persons from coastal Andhra region were appointed to the posts

31

belonging to them on the ground that qualified personnel from Telangana were

not available. It is another matter that in the interests of imparting quality

governance, qualified people from Bombay state, Mysore state, and, limitedly,

from other neighbouring states were also brought in to fill in the quality gaps in

the civil and judicial administration. To an extent, such steps were resorted to

even in the law and order administration. The fact that Urdu was the language of

administration and the judiciary in the erstwhile Hyderabad State under the

Nizam as opposed to English, which was used in coastal Andhra, as part of

Madras Presidency, did not help things either and was taken as one of the

reasons for such employment needs to provide better governance. In order to

draw the attention of the Government to their grievances, the people of

Telangana began to organize protest meetings and observed Telangana

Safeguards Day on July 10, 1968.

The influx of the people from coastal Andhra into the city of

1.2.19

consequence of a High Court judgment holding that the Andhra Pradesh State

Electricity Board did not come under the purview of the Public Employment

(Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957. It is reported that the agitation and

discontent of the people at large manifested itself when a student in Khammam

went on a hunger strike in January, 1969. By the middle of January, the

agitation gained momentum and spread to other districts and students also got

involved in the movement. While one section of the students demanded full

imple

state. The non-gazetted officers from Telangana joined the movement with the

demand for the immediate repatriation to coastal Andhra region, of about six

thousand coastal Andhra employees occupying the Telangana posts. The

agitation took a violent turn in certain areas. The state government immediately

responded by convening a meeting of the all party political leaders of the state

on January 18-19, 1969. The two important issues agitating the Telangana

people, namely, the repatriation of coastal Andhra officials from Telangana and

the quantum of surplus revenue of Telangana, were discussed. It was announced

that the quantum of Telangana surpluses would be decided by a senior officer

32

appointed for the purpose and the coastal Andhra officials would be repatriated

by providing jobs in the coastal Andhra area. Unfortunately, the police firing on

the agitating students on January 20, 1969, further provoked the students,

leaving the proposed government action decided in the all party meeting and the

appeal for peace in limbo. On January 22, the agitation became violent all across

Telangana, resulting in heavy damage to public property. The agitation spanning

nearly for a year from December, 1968, to November, 1969, resulted in colossal

damage to public and private property, loss of precious life and injury to several

people across the districts. Appropriate police action was taken to control the law

and order situation. Estimates varied on the extent of damage and loss of life. In

order to diffuse the situation, in the initial stages itself, the Government issued a

Government Order (G.O.) assuring to remove/move all non mulki officials from

their current positions and set a dead line for the same as February 28, 1969.

The state government also announced that it was extending the Mulki Rules to

the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board as it was funded by the state. It was also

announced that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India had agreed to

depute a senior executive to determine the Telangana surpluses. On the

announcement of these decisions, particularly the one pertaining to repatriation

of employees of coastal Andhra/Rayalaseema from Telangana region, violence

erupted in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. During this period,

Telangana Students Action committee called upon the students of Telangana to

abstain from classes till a separate state was formed. K.V.Ranga Reddy, former

Deputy Chief Minister, joined the students, stating that without separate

statehood, the injustice to Telangana cannot be rectified and prevented. While

the situation was taking a turn for the worse, the Supreme Court granted an

injunction on the s

rep

Supreme Court to be ultra-vires of the Constitution. This led to the

intensification of the agitation for a separate statehood.

An agitation began in Telangana in January, 1969, as a mentation of “safeguards”, the other section demanded bifurcation of the tate Government‟s announcement of “Non-Mulki employee atriation by February 28, 1969”. Subsequently, the order was declared by the

1.2.20

the situation, announced in the Lok Sabha on April 11, 1969, an Eight-Point Plan

33

to resolve the problem. The plan envisaged among others addressing all the

contentious issues. The Eight-Point plan did not find favour with the dissident

Congress leaders and non-Congress parties of Telangana region. The student

agitation, as a result, passed in to the hands of the politicians demanding

separate statehood,

Praja

The Government became tough with the agitating political leaders, while the

agitation continued till November when there was a split in the Praja Samithi and

slowly with the passage of time, normalcy returned to state.

The Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, who was closely watching who formed themselves into what was called the “Telengana Samithi”. The Samithi, thereafter, began to organize a planned agitation.

1.2.21

the Government strengthened the Telangana Regional Committee, (ii) the action

on rational accounting of Telangana revenue surpluses, (iii) opening of more

educational institutions in the Telangana area, and (iv) special subsidies to

industries in six Telangana districts and two Rayalaseema districts. On the

political side, P.V. Narasimha Rao became the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in

September 1971, as the first Telanganite to assume the coveted office.

The positive outcomes of the 1969 Jai Telangana agitation were (i)

1.2.22

continued to be in force in the Telangana region. As a result, the people of

coastal Andhra region found it difficult to enter into government services in the

Telangana region - (focus on Hyderabad where the Mulki Rules were operative).

They nurtured a feeling that they faced discrimination in their own state and that

too in their own state capital. As a consequence, some of the coastal Andhra

employees challenged the validity of the Mulki Rules in the Andhra Pradesh High

Court. On February 14, 1972, a full bench of the five judges, with a 4-1 majority,

held that the Mulki Rules were not valid and operative after the formation of

Andhra Pradesh state (in 1919 the Nizam of Hyderabad had issu

laying down that only “Mulkis”

The High Court Judgment stirred the Andhra Pradesh Government and was a

rude shock to the Telanganites as they were always insisting on enforcement of

the Mulki Rules. The government preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court

34

against the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Further, the government

also announced that it would go ahead with the regionalization of services and

take the required steps in order to safeguard the interests of Telanganites in the

matter of employment. On October 3, 1972, the Supreme Court gave its verdict

reversing the A.P High Court decision and holding that Mulki Rules were valid and

were in force. This judgment stirred the people in coastal Andhra region who felt

that they were reduced to the status of second class citizens in their own state

capital. Ostensibly, to safeguard their dignity, they preferred to sever their

connection with Telanganites. This

1.2.23

Rules. The Government of India, realizing the intensity of the feelings of the

people in both the regions on the issue of Mulki Rules, tried to arrive at a

balance, and in the process, agreed to allow the Mulki Rules in the twin cities

upto 1977 and in the rest of the Telangana until the end of 1980. A Bill was

introduced in the Parliament to that effect which was passed on December 31,

1972. Intervening in the discussion, the then Prime Minister, Smt. Indira

Gandhi, said:

After the trifurcation of Hyderabad state in 1956, the Mulki rules ed a “Firman” are eligible for public appointment in the state). led to the “Jai-Andhra agitation”. The AP Government announced its decision to implement the Mulki

“

swept away by feelings. We must see what is in the larger interest of the people

We should consider the feeling of the people but it would be very wrong to be

themselves.”

--------

“

should be very careful not to break this foundation of rationality in momentary

There is an overall rationality in the formation of our various States and we

passions.”

--------

“

people of that very region and see what will serve their interest best

------

Copy of the Address of the Prime Minister is at Appendix 1.8.

The government must think in a very calm manner about the interest of the .”

1.2.24

passage of the Bill as they wanted nothing short of immediate abolition of the

Mulki Rules. The Congressmen from the coastal Andhra area met on December

31, 1972, at the Tirupati Convention which was attended by a large number of

the Congressmen from the Assembly and council and chairmen and presidents of

35

the Zilla Parishads. The Convention was presided over by B.V. Subba Reddy, who

was till then the Deputy Chief Minister and had resigned before the convention.

At this convention, a call was given to people to

Administration‟

The Jai Andhra agitation spread like a wild fire and, did, in fact, succeed in

paralysing the administration. It continued for more than two months, resulting

in damage to public and private property, loss of human life and injury to several

people across the districts. Taking all these aspects into consideration, including

the intensity of the agitation,

January, 1973. On March 18, 1973, the Andhra leaders met at Chittoor, in

Rayalaseema region, to resolve the issue but the meeting did not yield much of a

result.

The people of coastal Andhra region were taken aback by the “Paralayse the State ” by refusing to pay taxes and by defying the prohibitory orders. President‟s Rule was imposed in the state in

1.2.25

Mulki Rules. The Andhra Pradesh High Court on February 16, 1973, declared that

people from outside who came to Telangana and settled there could also be

Mulkis and not only those who were born and brought up in Telangana. As a

result of this decision, the Telangana people claimed that they lost the benefit of

the Mulki Rule. In another development , on July 11, 1973, the Andhra Pradesh

High Court gave another verdict that Mulki Rules would apply to initial

recruitment and nor for subsequent stages of promotion, seniority, reversion,

retrenchment or ousting from service, whether temporary or permanent. As a

result of these developments, and gradual loss of public support, Congressmen

from both sides realized the futility of their demand for bifurcation. They wanted

a face saving formula to put an end to their agitational approaches.

In the meanwhile, another twist came in respect of the definition of

1.2.26

series of discussion with leaders of both the regions, evolved a consensus

through

address compr

enduring answers to the problems, and at the same time endeavour to achieve

Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi again intervened, and after a the “Six Point Formula”. The Six point formula, in a way, tried to ehensively the elements of the “Gentlemen‟s Agreement” and find

“

36

implementation of the Six Point Formula was required to be backed by the

Constitutional Amendment which was enabled by the Thirty-Second Amendment

in 1973. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (Thirty-

Second) Amendment Act, 1973, clearly mentioned why such legislation was

needed and hence the same is reproduced below:

emotional integration” of the people of Andhra Pradesh. The effective

“When the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956, certain

safeguards were envisaged for the Telangana Area in the matter of

development and also in the matter of employment opportunities and

educational facilities for the residents of that area. The provision of Clause

(1) of Article 371 of the Constitution were intended to give effect to

certain features of these safeguards. The Public Employment

(Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, was enacted, inter-alia, to

provide for employment opportunities for residents of Telangana area. But

in 1969,the Supreme Court held the relevant provision of the Act to be

unconstitutional in so far as it related to the safeguards envisaged for the

Telengana Area. Owing to a variety of causes, the working of the

safeguards gave rise to a certain amount of dissatisfaction sometimes in

the Telengana Area and sometimes in the other areas of the State.

Measures were devised from time to time to solve the problems. Recently

several leaders of Andhra Pradesh made a concerted effort to analyse the

factors which have been giving rise to the dissatisfaction and find enduring

answers to the problem with a view to achieving fuller emotional

integration of the people of Andhra Pradesh. On the September 21, 1973,

they suggested measures (generally known as the Six-Point Formula)

indicating a uniform approach for promoting accelerated development of

the backward areas of the State so as to secure the balanced development

of the State as a whole and for providing equitable opportunities to

different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and

career prospects in public services….”.

omits clause(1) of Article 371and makes special provision with respect to

the State of Andhra Pradesh by inserting new clause 371-D (Appendix1.9).

37

The Thirty-Second Amendment Act

1.2.27

repealed in 1973 by the Mulki Rules Repeal Act and the Six Point Formula (SPF)

(see Appendix 1.10) was announced on 21

1973, highlighting the following:-

(1) Constitution of a Planning Board at the state Level as well as

Sub-Committees for different backward areas.

(2) Preference to local candidates in the matter of admission to

educational institutions and establishment of a new Central

University at Hyderabad.

(3) Preference to specified extent to local candidates in the

matter of direct recruitment and organization of local cadres.

(4) Constitution of Administrative Tribunal.

(5) Amending Constitution suitably for the above purpose.

(6) The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki

Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary.

Among other things, a major effect of the Six Point Formula was that it

resulted in the abolition of the Telangana Regional Committee and setting

up of a state Planning and Development Board and separate Planning and

Development Committees for the three regions of the state. The States

Reorganization Act, in the meanwhile, had already provided for location of

Benches of the High Court, in other parts of the state as and when

required.

As a result of the events described above, the Mulki Rules were st September, 1973 and 22nd October,

1.3 Andhra Pradesh (1973

1.3.01

special provisions with respect to the state of Andhra Pradesh in the Constitution

(Article 371-D) and a Presidential Order was issued through G.O. Ms. No 674 on

February 20, 1975, to mark the beginning of the implementation of the Formula.

Copy of the Presidential Order is at Appendix 1.11

September, 1973, when the formula was evolved, and February, 1975, when

38

the same was put to implementation, witnessed two important milestones; one

was the abolition of the Mulki Rules on December 31, 1973, through the Mulki

Rules Repeal Act, 1973, which

1973, and the other was the abolition of the Telangana Regional Committee

from January 1, 1974, under a Presidential Order issued on December 10, 1973.

This was in consonance with the sixth provision in the SPF which reads

above approach would render the continuation of Mulki Rules and (the) Regional

Committee unnecessary

Constitutional (Thirty Second) Amendment Bill, which was passed by the Lok

Sabha on December 18, 1973, to give effect to the SPF received an

overwhelming assent as the voting was 311 for and 8 against.

mandate encouraged the Union

which had been imposed on January 18, 1973, in December 1973. Prime Minister

Smt. Indira Gandhi, who was the architect of the SPF, while ensuring consensus

on the formula, also balanced the same with enduring political space for the

Telangana leadership. As it turned out during 1973-1982, the popular

Governments were headed by Telangana leadership. It started with a stable

government with a well respected Telangana leader J. Vengala Rao as Chief

– 2000) The Six point Formula (SPF) was incorporated in the form of . The interregnum between received President‟s assent on December 31, “The ”. It may be relevant to mention here that the 18 Such a huge Government to revoke the President‟s Rule,

Minister, after the lifting of the President‟s Rule. This

the next Assembly elections that were held in February, 1978. During this

period, economic activity picked up with good progress on agricultural and

industrial fronts. The growth momentum of this period, by and large, continued

till the recent agitations (2009-10). A comprehensive account of the economic

growth of the state, including region-wise details, is covered in the succeeding

Chapter. Incidentally, in the post emergency Lok Sabha elections (1977),

although the Congress Party led by Smt. Indira Gandhi lost in almost all the north

Indian states, in Andhra Pradesh, it won 41 out of 42 Lok Sabha seats. In the

Assembly elections held in February, 1978, the Congress party led by Smt. Indira

Gandhi, although not in power at the Centre (the Janata Party including the

breakaway faction of the Congress had come to power at the Centre in March

government lasted up to

18 Source: Lok Sabha Proceedings of 1973.

39

1977, with Morarji Desai, a veteran Congress leader as Prime Minister), and had

got further split a month before the state Assembly elections, still swept the

polls. In a way, the results of the 1978 Assembly elections in the state seemed to

have endorsed the policy of Smt. Indira Gandhi for a unified Andhra Pradesh. In

keeping with her approach of giving appropriate political space to Telangana,

Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, earlier a well known protagonist of separate Telangana,

became the Chief Minister on March 6, 1978, and reportedly announced that

“

1982, no leader from Telangana took reins of Andhra Pradesh as Chief Minister,

except Dr. M. Chenna Reddy who was Chief Minister for a brief period of one

year during December 1989-December 1990. The entire subject of political space

has been discussed in detail subsequently in the Report, since this has been

projected as one of the major issues by the Telangana delegations before the

Committee.

separate Telangana is no longer an issue”.19 It is another matter that, since

1.3.02

point of the formula provided for constitution of a Planning Board at the state

level and sub-Committees for different backward areas for accelerating their

development. Accordingly, the state government set up Planning Board(s) for

the state and also separately for coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana

regions, for this purpose. This arrangement replaced the sixteen years old

Telangana Regional Committee. In the area of education, a Presidential Order,

namely,

Order, 1974

established by an Act of Parliament in 1974. In spite of these positive actions, it

has been represented that some areas of neglect in the provision and

governance of education continued to persist in Telangana region. This aspect

has been discussed at length in a subsequent Chapter. The Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal order, 1975, was issued in May, 1975, to deal with the

The details of the SPF have been given in Para 1.2.27. The first “The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) ” was issued in July, 1974. Besides, the University of Hyderabad was

19 Rao,P.V 1994 History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh-From the Earliest Times to 1991, in, Rao, P.R. (ed), New Delhi,

Sterling Publishers Private Limited, p 330

40

grievances of services. The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of

Local Cadres and regulation of Recruitment) Order, 1975, was issued

subsequently.

1.3.03

an approach consisting of a strategy for development, an education policy, a

method of recruitment and a machinery for remedying the grievances in the

services. The essential part of the strategy for development and growth was

outlined through the accelerated development of backward areas of the state in

all the three regions and planned development of the state capital with specific

resources earmarked for the purpose. Appropriate involvement of representatives

from backward areas in the state Legislature, along with other experts in the

formulation and monitoring of development schemes for the backward areas,

was ensured as part of the strategy for development. Constitution of the Planning

Board(s) at the state level as well as at the regional level was considered as a

primary instrument for achieving these objectives. On the flipside, certain

amount of discontent on the abolition of TRC, for whatever contribution it could

make, coupled with the fact that the SPF was more state-centric as compared to

Thus, the SPF, it was widely considered and believed, had outlined

the Gentlemen‟s Agreement

voiced. The SPF, however, by and large, found its way for public acceptance and

the dilemma that faced the leadership at the time of the formation of the state

(in 1956) in the continuing thinking of reconfiguration of the state and retaining

the identity of a separate Hyderabad/Telangana got diffused to a large extent.

On the other hand, the SPF helped the growth of Telugu sub-nationalism, a

culture that had been nurtured over centuries and to which attention was drawn

by Smt. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister, in a debate in the Lok Sabha on December

22, 1972, at the height of the separatist reflections. The full text of the Prime

, which was primarily Telangana-centric, has been

Minister‟s address is given at

The very first Article of our Constitution declared that India is a Union of

States. Each State has a long cultural and historical tradition and each

state has become a political entity in its own special way. Andhra Pradesh

has been a distinctive cultural

which now constitute Andhra Pradesh have been under one umbrella for

Appendix 1.8. The Prime Minister had said: unit for thousands of years……… All parts

long periods of history………. Perhaps it was this long history which

41

inspired the Telugu-speaking people when they yearned and struggled for

seve

It was really the will of the Telugu-speaking people which prevailed over

the proposal of some people to retain the old Hyderabad state

ral decades to form a unified Andhra Pradesh……..

………

……..

……..

It is true that that the Question of linguistic states was very much a part

of the national movement. There was no getting away from it. The Units

of every part which was in existence at a time were formed on the basis of

language……….

There is an overall rationality in the formation of our various states and we

should be very careful not to break this foundation of rationality in a

momentary passion…….

I stand firmly for an integrated State………… It does not matter how many

States we have, you still will be neighbours and you still will have to deal

with one another in a hundred and one things. Thinking that just because

you are separated, you can get rid of these people or we have got rid of

this problem is a very facile way of thinking. Our experience has not

shown that this comes true.

To sum up, the Six Point Formula paved the way for a reasonably enduring

political stability and sustained economic growth for about three decades in the

state, despite occasional voicing of Telangana sentiment and a few minor

agitations here and there.

1.3.04

struggle for the cause of Telugu sub-nationalism seeking a separate identity. It

also made common cause with other linguistic and cultural regional identities so

that states could have greater autonomy in the mould of a federal structure,

which was perceived by these entities to be in the best interest of the

governance of the country. In the post independence period, while the Indian

National Congress, through its policies, focused on nationalistic spirit, there

developed a political culture, gradually, across the states, highlighting regional

aspirations which took the form of linguistic, cultural and ethnic sub-nationalism

and resulted in the emergence of regional political parties. As noted in the

42

Report of the second Commission on Centre-State Relations,

proved to be a watershed in the history of Independent India….. This was the

Formation of Andhra Pradesh was the result of a protracted “The year 1967

time when certain issues of importance pertaining to Centre-State relations came

into the fore both in the form of criticism of the functioning of existing

mechanisms and processes as also because the regional political parties wanted

to create their own nich

such an important dimension at that time that Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the

President, while addressing the Joint Session of Parliament on March 18, 1967,

observed:

e in their respective regions……”. The subject acquired

“

complexions different from that of the Government at the Centre have

been formed in several States. In a federal democratic polity, this is to be

For the first time since Independence, governments of political

expected…….”

In north India, the regional parties and regional coalitions coming to power had

its advent in the mid sixties, i.e. from 1967 itself. However, in the southern and

western states, with the exception of Tamil Nadu, primarily the Indian National

Congress continued to have a hold over the political and governance structure

almost up to the early eighties.

20.

1.3.05

Andhra Pradesh, like in some other states, and the championing of Telugu subnationalist

pride became the basis for the emergence of the Telugu Desam Party.

The impact of the birth of Telugu Desam was that it greatly overshadowed the

regional political divisions that had existed in the form of Telangana, coastal

Andhra and Rayalaseema. Another important aspect of the growth of Telugu

Desam Party was that, with this development, it was able to establish a veritable

two party system in Andhra Pradesh within a few years of its formation in 1982.

Starting from 1982 till now, Andhra Pradesh has been ruled either by Telugu

Desam Party or by the Indian National Congress. The enduring leadership in the

form of N.T. Rama Rao and N. Chandrababu Naidu of Telugu Desam Party and of

The gradual weakening of the leadership of the Congress Party in

20 Report of the Second Commission on Centre-State Relations, Vol.I ,Evolution of Centre-State Relations in India, p. xvii

43

Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy of the Congress Party for long periods, aided by a

strong political machinery for governance while at the same time continuing to

champion the cause of Telugu unity, helped in keeping the demand for a

separate Telangana dormant or at best in a subdued state. One of the points of

view expressed before the Committee was that, with none of these powerful

leaders belonging to Telangana region, the policies of the successive

Governments, since 1982, were not generally in favour of equitable development

of Telangana. In this context, accusations were made that, during this period,

large areas of resourceful land, including wakf lands in and around Hyderabad,

were acquired at

belonging to Telangana region) at a great advantage to them ignoring the

interest of the locals. Although the industrial and economic developmental base

much cheaper prices for and by “outsiders” (persons not

that was created by these “outsiders”

economic and industrial growth and incidental employment benefits, the higherend

dividends in terms of incomes and jobs and other similar avenues in these

attractive efforts

with lower-end jobs and less attractive opportunities. It has been represented

before the Committee that the unified state of Andhra Pradesh was maintained

more through financial and political machinations than by giving equal and

equitable opportunities to Telangana region and its people. All these aspects

covering the political space, economic and other developmental issues including

those related to land use and employment are dealt with extensively in the

subsequent Chapters.

, using these lands, contributed to general were taken away again by the “outsiders”, leaving the locals

1.3.06

the city of Hyderabad, particularly in the aftermath of the Six Point Formula,

became a contentious issue. While there was no dispute that the city had

developed enormously during the post 1975 period, Telangana protagonists

contended that the urban development in Hyderabad was disproportionate and

skewed in favour of the needs of the migrants and sacrificed the principles of

social and economic equity. It was stressed that its economic strength had

declined because of the down-turn in the growth of industrial activities such as,

44

manufacturing and trade, which bring in money, capital and sustained

employment. The growth was largely confined to the service sector and local

trade only. While the population of Hyderabad has grown three times after the

formation of the state in 1956, basic amenities have not grown in the same

proportion. The improvement in the transportation system largely benefited only

the privileged classes of urban community. The industrial units that came up in

the periphery of the city of Hyderabad by the efforts of migrants engaged largely

their own

employment opportunities at various levels. Most of the urban housing activity

was concentrated in the eastern, northern and north-western parts of the city,

while in the south, which has been the home of the native population, the same

was insignificant, with the result that the city developed in an uneven manner.

Even the civic amenities planned were often diverted to meet the needs of the

migrants.

no longer merely a Telangana city and that its identity, particularly over the last

35 years or so, has undergone a complete change in all respects and that

Hyderabad today is a major national metropolis. They have extended several

arguments such as large investments, major change in demographic profile,

massive seasonal employment for the unemployed coastal Andhra and

Rayalaseema youth, political neutrality etc. in support of their contention. Be

that as it may, notwithstanding certain amount of economic setback faced by the

city post the current agitation of late 2009 - early 2010, the fact remains that

Hyderabad has grown over the years from a city status to a large and thriving

metropolis with a cosmopolitan outlook. The status of Hyderabad, along with a

couple of other major issues, is at the centre of current debate with arguments

vociferously extended both by the sections demanding separate Telangana and

those insisting on keeping the state as a single unit as Samaikya Andhra.

In the meanwhile, the economic development and urbanization of “migrant” staff to man the industry, thus depriving the locals of 21 United Andhra advocates, on the other hand, insist that Hyderabad is

21 Rao,Ram Mohan,

Studies, Hyderabad

et.al. 1997 Telangana-Dimensions of Underdevelopment, in, Seshadri, S. (ed), Centre for Telangana

45

1.3.07

developmental profile. Hyderabad, along with its peripheral areas, has largely

been service-centric in spite of housing several large manufacturing units both in

public and private sectors and the real estate and infrastructure development

enterprises, and has been growing along this pattern. Its pre-eminence in IT

exports and as the biggest software centre in Andhra Pradesh is well established.

The city is also contributing to the growing share of national exports from the

software talent it has pooled from across the country. The availability of basic

infrastructure like space/land, transport systems, power supply etc. provided an

added advantage. It is also contended that migration of people to Hyderabad is

not a new phenomena. It started in 1920s, at the invitation from the Nizam of

Hyderabad to the farming community from coastal Andhra for cultivation of the

lands of Nizam-Hyderabad. By 1930s, there were about 20 lakh migrants

cultivating about 10 lakh acres of land in the then Hyderabad state. They were

It is a known fact that Hyderabad stands apart in terms of

called “settlers”

coastal Andhra alone. Although in comparatively smaller numbers, migration had

also taken place from Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Uttar

Pradesh and Gujarat etc. The c

consolidation of “talent”

formed the backbone for the spread of Hindi which facilitated communication

linkages with the northern states and which in turn attracted work force from the

north in the low income strata. Other infrastructure facilities, like availability of

primary coal and power resources, lent support to encouraging investment. The

city, thus, acquired a sort of national character with the spread of IT and ITrelated

software and service enterprises.

. Migration to Hyderabad was not confined to persons from ity‟s cosmopolitan character had enabled from all parts of the country. The “Urdu” heritage

1.3.08

dealing with Hyderabad alone, has been included in the Report.

Looking at the importance of the issue, a separate detailed Chapter

1.3.09

the turn of the century remained, by and large, peaceful and the state witnessed

relatively impressive economic growth, one aspect which continued to be

46

contentious for the Government employees of Telangana region and defied

satisfactory resolution despite a host of measure and correctives, pertained to

“employment in Government”

violent agitations on this issue in 1952, in the then Hyderabad state, when Mulki

Rules were in operation, a few students had lost their lives as a result of the

police firing. The dissatisfaction on this front continued to agitate the minds of

the government employees from Telangana region during these three decades

also, which many times was expressed through demonstrations and other

manifestations.

Although, the period post introduction of Six Point Formula (SPF) till
. It may be recalled that, in one of the earlier

1.3.10

involvement and the follow-up action on the same was taken by the state

government during 1956-73, based on the orders of the High Court and the

Supreme Court. In the post-1973 dispensation, it was to be dealt with under the

Presidential Order, 1975. The general criticism of the Telangana employees on

the Presidential Order itself and its implementation was:-

(i) The Presidential Order which was introduced to assure justice in

Government employment and allay the fears of Telangana employees was

used to inflict further discrimination against them in practice, as reflected

in the changes of zones for employment (within the Telangana Zones);

The issue of „Implementation of Mulki Rules” entailed judicial

misinterpretation of the definition of “locals”

benefit “non

Presidential Order for gazetted positions and Heads of the Departments

(HoDs) by upgrading several non-gazetted posts to gazetted level.

(ii) The second point was that the Presidential Order was issued in 1975

and it took ten years for the Government to correct the anomalies and

bring out a comprehensive G.O. in 1985, popularly known as G.O. 610.

(iii) Another issue which Telangana employees have been raising is that

although the Government has taken several measures in relation to the

reservation of employment of Telangana people, each measure stood as a

proof to the fact that the earlier measure was either not implemented fully

or wrongly implemented.

47

in the Presidential Order to -locals” and misuse of the exemption provided in the

1.3.11

above, the state government in the year 198

Committee”

the state Government and two other Members, to look into the various anomalies

in the implementation of the Presidential Order. This Committee identified the

anomalies in Government employment between 1975 and 1985 which were in

violation of the Presidential Order and recommended measures to rectify the

same. Following the

a One-Man Commission headed by V. Sundaresan, another (Retd.) IAS officer of

the state government, to further examine the violations in the implementation of

the Six Point Formula and to suggest corrective step taking into consideration the

report of the Officer

these Committees, and after having wide ranging discussions, the state

Government entered into an agreement with the Telangana Non-Gazetted

Officers Union on 07.12.1985 and issued orders in the form of G.O.Ms. No.610

(SPF) on December 30, 1985, for the rectification of irregularities in the

implementation of the Presidential Order. One of the key instructions under Para

5 (1) of this Order is as follows:

In view of the criticism by the Telangana employees, as mentioned 4 constituted an “Officers‟ headed by Shri K. Jayabharath Reddy, a former Chief Secretary to Committee‟s report, the Government, thereafter, appointed ‟s Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of both

“

Telangana Zones) in violation of zonalisation of local cadre under the sixpoint

formula will be repatriated to their respective zones by 31.3.1986 by

creating supernumerary posts wherever necessar

During the next 15 years after the issue of G.O.610, the Government is reported

to have been receiving representations regarding rectification of lapses in the

implementation of the Six Point Formula insofar as it related to public services.

The matter was discussed in an All-Party meeting held on 15.6.2001, and a One-

Man Commission (Six Point Formula) was constituted on 25.06.2001, under J.M.

Girglani, IAS (Retd.). The Girglani Commission submitted its final report on

30.9.2004 with 126 findings and suggested 35 remedial measures. The

Government constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to examine the

48

recommendations of the One-Man Commission on 10.8.2004. The GoM examined

and accepted the final Report of the Girglani Commission. The state cabinet

discussed the Report on 16.02.2006 and after further consultations and

clarifications, the Report was finally accepted by the Government on 10.08.2006.

The salient aspects of the follow-up action/steps taken by the Government on the

implementation of Girglani Commission Report are at Appendix 1.12. It is learnt

by the present Committee that during the past four years, as a result of the steps

taken by the Government to implement Girglani Report, there has been great

improvement in the satisfaction level of Telangana employees on the

implementation of G.O. 610. The fact, however, remains that the implementation

of G.O. 610 during 1985 to 2005 was, at best, tardy, which remains a grievance

of Telangana employees. This issue continues to be highly contentious even

today. A separate Chapter, therefore, examining this subject in a comprehensive

manner, has been dedicated later in the Report.

the employees allotted after 18.10.1975 to Zone-V and VI (i.e. y”.

1.3.12

Telugu “sub

that existed in the three regions of the integrated state at the time of formation

and other social and cultural factors gave each region a distinct identity. This

identity continued to influence the state politics and electoral outcomes in the

coming decades. While the demand for separate Telangana stayed dormant

during 1982-2000 periods, the state did face some major internal agitations since

the emergence of TDP after the 1983 Assembly elections, on issues such as:

a. Reduction in the retirement age from 58 years to 55 years by the

TDP Government which resulted in a prolonged confrontation between

the Non-gazetted Officers (NGOs) and the Government;

b. Abolition, by the TDP Government of the hereditary posts of two

traditional village officers viz: the post of

Patwari

Officer(VAO) who was appointed by the state government and making it

transferable;

49

c. Anti-Arrack movement by women

d. Assertion of Dalits and the emergence of independent Dalit

organizations; etc.

The formation of united Andhra Pradesh was premised on the allinclusive -nationalism”. However, the imbalance in the development Karanam in Andhra region or in Telangana and replacing them with a Village Administrative

1.3.13

the growth of Naxalism in a major way. The Naxal movement in Andhra Pradesh

was the product of many combinations and various factors. Some of the issues

listed in sub-para 1.3.12 above also contributed to the growth of this movement.

It had its genesis in the Communist movement of 1945-51 in the Telangana

region involving the peasant struggle against Zamindari and landlordism. After

independence, the people

receded. It got re-generated after the Naxalbari movement in 1968-69 in West

Bengal and the problem spread to northern Andhra Pradesh including Telangana.

Although, Naxalism was treated by the Government as a law and order problem

and was controlled appreciably through various means, it continued to expand,

establishing its influence in the politics of Andhra Pradesh and, in particular, in

the electoral politics. Reportedly, different political parties did seek the support of

the naxals at election time during this period. The details of the influence of

Naxalism on the polity, economy and internal security of Andhra Pradesh are

discussed in a separate Chapter in the Report.

In the meanwhile, the state during the last 30 years also witnessed ‟s support to the movement, however, gradually

1.3.14

Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) in 1997, had passed a resolution supporting a

separate state for Telangana. Accordingly, in the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, BJP

It will be recalled that the BJP, in its national executive meeting at

gave the slogan “One Vote

region. Taking advantage of this position, TDP, which, by then, had started

implementing the new economic reform programme of the Centre and had to

leave its electoral alliance with the left, made BJP its ally in 1999 Lok Sabha and

state Assembly elections. Both parties gained through this alliance. BJP won

seven out of the eight Lok Sabha seats it contested while TDP won 29 Lok Sabha

seats. In the State Assembly elections, TDP won 179 seats and formed the

Government. In the meantime, driven by the situation prevailing in the state,

50

MLAs of the Congress from Telangana region had also started a regional forum

called Telangana Congress Legislators Forum (TCLF) with the consent of the

state leadership. In the panchayat election in Telangana region, the slogan of

, Two States”. It received more votes in the Telangana

TCLF was “

campaign, other general issues such as strengthening of the Panchayati Raj

bodies with more power to these bodies in terms of funds, functions and

functionaries were also highlighted. Thus the year 2001 marked the beginning of

the demand for separate Telangana once again.

Jai Congress, Jai Telangana”. In addition, in the panchayat elections

1.4 Andhra Pradesh (2001-2009)

1.4.01

provided the ground for the projection of the popularity of the TRS, which was

created only a year earlier with the goal of achieving a separate Telangana. TRS

provided the Telangana cause with all the needed ideological and logistical

support to keep the momentum going. In the process, the party tried to

maintain electoral prominence both at the state and at the Centre.

The resurfacing of the Telangana issue in panchayat elections

1.4.02

by social groups, students and government employees and made active largely

through the support of dissident Congressmen. On the other hand, the

Telangana separation effort of 2001 had multi-party involvement, largely on the

political plane, vying for the same cause. The cause was also interwoven with

the political alignments between the national and the two regional parties (TDP

and TRS) on the one hand, and among national parties on the other, mainly for

electoral gains.

It may be recalled that the agitation of 1969 was primarily started

1.4.03

Telangana taken by the BJP, the state unit of the Congress Party had also

projected Tela

Forum (TCLF)

time 41 MLAs belonging to the Congress from Telangana region had urged the

Congress President, Smt. Sonia Gandhi, to permit them to take up the

As noted earlier, with the coming of the TRS and the position on ngana cause under the aegis of “Telangana Congress Legislators ” in the panchayat election in 2001. It was reported that at that

“movement”

elections, the main cause of rivalry between TRS and Congress was the

51

Telangana issue, with each trying to gain at the cost of the other. Further, the

leaders of the Congress Forum for Telangana and the TCLF passed a resolution

at Nalgonda in December, 2002, assuring the people that a separate statehood

for Telangana was very much on the agenda of the Congress and it would strive

to creat a separate Telangana soon. It was also claimed that such a possibility

existed only under Congress rule and hoped that the demand would be included

in the next manifesto of the Party. It was also mentioned that regional parties

had failed earlier in securing this goal. They pressed the point that Congress

High Command had supported the formation of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal (now

Uttarakhand), and Chhattisgarh and mentioned that the Nalgonda meeting was

being held with the support of the Congress High Command.

for a separate state of Telangana. In fact, in these panchayat

1.4.04

Congress and the TRS formed an electoral alliance. In the Congress election

manifesto for 2004 elections, it was stated that

the growing emotions and aspirations of the

was further added in the manifesto that

States‟Reorganization Commission, the Congress Party notes that there are many

In the run-up to the 2004 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, the “the Congress Party recognizes people in the Telangana region”. It „while respecting the report of the

valid reasons for formation of separate states in Vidarbha and Telangana.

However the reorganization of existing States raises a large number of issues.

The Congress Party feels that the whole matter could be best addressed by

another States‟ Reorganization Commission to look into all the issues involved”.

1.4.05

elections and formed Governments at the Centre as well as in the state. The

TRS also joined the Government, both at the Centre and in the state. The

Governme

(UPA)”

Programme (NCMP), 2004, of the Government included the Telangana issue also

stating that

a Telangana state at an appropriate time after due consider

Subsequently in the Presidential address to the Joint Session of Parliament on

52

June 7, 2004, mention was made that

for the formation of a Telangana State at an appropriate time after due

consu

Committee of the Cabinet Ministers under the Chairmanship of Shri Pranab

Mukherjee in November, 2004 with Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh and Shri

Dayanidhi Maran as Members. The Committee did take up this matter further,

but no conclusion seems to have been arrived at.

The Congress won both the Lok Sabha and the State Assembly nt at the Centre was formed by “The United Progressive Alliance , led by the Congress Party. The UPA in their National Common Minimum “The UPA Government will consider the demand for the formation of ation and consensus”. “the Government will consider the demand ltations”. The UPA Government accordingly constituted a three-Member

1.4.06

indecisive over the delivery of its electoral promise to the TRS for creating a

separate Telangana, although (i) as per the election manifesto of the Congress

Party no such definite promise had been made; and ii) in the CMP also no

guaranteed assurance or time limit had been indicated, TRS in September, 2006

withdrew support to the Congress-led UPA Government at the Centre. The other

main reason prominently quoted was the differences between TRS President

K.Chandrasekhara Rao and the Congress Chief Minister Dr. Y.S.Rajasekhara

Reddy. TRS ministers left their positions in Government both at the centre and in

the state. Subsequently, all the four TRS MPs and the sixteen MLAs resigned

their seats in the first week of March 2008 over this issue, forcing bye-elections.

The bye-elections were held in May, 2008. In the run-up to the elections, while

the TRS went all out in supporting the cause of Telangana and called the byeelections

as a referendum on the issue, both the Congress and the TDP

maintained that the bye-elections did not lend themselves to being seen as a

referendum on Telangana issue, as they too were not opposed to the formation

of a separate Telangana state. However, the election results proved quite

disappointing to the TRS which could retain only seven out of sixteen MLA seats

and two out of four MP seats.

On the reported grounds that the Central Government had been

1.4.07

K.Chandrasekhara Rao, President, TRS announced that TRS had joined the

On January 31, 2009, before the State Assembly elections, Shri

„Mahakutami‟

Party and included the Third Front and the Left parties. The main purpose of

53

(grand alliance). The grand alliance was headed by Telugu Desam

“

elections with a view to win the same as a United Front against the Congress

party as the Congress party, in their opinion, was not taking a decision on

Telangana. The BJP, though having not been able to resolve the Telangana

issue during the NDA regime up to 2004, continued to maintain the earlier

stand that their policy was for smaller states and if they won the forthcoming

elections (Lok Sabha and Assembly), they would be in a position to create

Telangana. In the meanwhile, the Congress ruled state government constituted

a Joint Committee of Legislators under the Chairmanship of the then Finance

Minister, Shri K. Rosaiah, on Telangana related issues. However, some of the

opposition parties such as BJP, CPI(M), CPI and TRS replied that they did not

wish to be associated with the said Committee. The TDP also did not respond to

Mahakutami” was to contest the upcoming State Assembly and Lok Sabha

the Government‟s request

legislators from the Congress Party representing all the three regions and one

from AIMIM. With major parties not co-operating and the events taking an

entirely different turn by the year end (covered in the subsequent para) the

Committee could not move too much forward on its Terms of Reference

1.4.08

showing a further decline in its overall popularity in the region. To recall, TRS

had twenty six seats in 2004 which came down to seventeen seats after 2008

bye-elections (which were held only for sixteen Assembly segments) and in 2009,

as stated above, it further shrank to ten seats only. In the Lok Sabha, it won

only two seats, coming down from the five seats it had held in the previous Lok

Sabha. It would thus be seen that the popularity of TRS in 2009 had dipped

substantially from 2004 levels. Many political pundits attribute the impressive

. The Committee was thus formed, having seven 22. In the Assembly elections of May 2009, TRS won only 10 seats,

22 The ToR for the Joint Committee included examining concerns of minorities in the proposed Telangana set up,

facts relating to employment and exploitation of resources, identification of economic issues, the status of Hyderabad

Metropolitan area taking into account the migrant population, their concern excluding Hyderabad, the issues relating to

Maoists and terrorists activities in the context of the proposed Telangana set up, the sharing of river waters visa-a-vis

the existing situation, the existing demands for separate statehood by other regions of the State and working out a

strategy for overall development of all the regions in the event of formation of Telangana state including the

infrastructure facility at the state capital

54

success of the TRS in 2004 to their alliance with the Congress party. Soon after

the 2009 Assembly elections, TRS left Mahakutami and tied up with the BJP, the

alliance which exists even at present. The flip-flop electoral policy of TRS

right from its constitution in 2001, also came to the fore with its latest alliance

with the BJP. Its leader and some of its MLAs who were part of TDP, had left TDP

to form TRS in the year 2001; in 2004 elections it entered into an alliance with

the Congress Party, left the alliance in 2006, contested the bye-elections for

sixteen Assembly seats in 2008 on its own, joined the Mahakutami led by TDP

before 2009 elections and finally left the alliance soon after the elections and

joined hands with the BJP. Be that as it may, the Congress party won the State

Assembly elections with a comfortable majority and formed the Government in

May 2009. In the Lok Sabha elections, the Congress won thirty three out of forty

two seats from Andhra Pradesh and the Congress-led United Progressive

Alliance (UPA-2) again formed the Government at the Centre. It may be relevant

to mention here that unlike the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP)

of UPA-1, the NCMP of UPA-2 did not make any mention of the Telangana issue.

– both for the State and Central Governments.

1.4.09

major public concern over the Telangana issue during the months of May-

November, 2009. Incidentally, during this period elections to Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation (GHMC) took place on November 23, 2009, which TRS did

not contest. The President of TRS made a statement that

agenda like attainment of a separate Telangana we have decided not to

participate in the GHMC Polls which is a minor issue having no great

It may be noted that there was no specific noticeable incident of „since we have a larger

consequence‟

elaborate plan for the indefinite fast to be undertaken by him in the last week

November, 2009. However, other parties held that TRS did not contest these

elections as the party did not have any support in greater Hyderabad.

Notwithstanding this, TRS once again started taking an aggressive posture on the

Telangana issue from November 2009 onwards. The Chief Minister, Dr. Y.S.

Rajasekhara Reddy suddenly passed away in a helicopter crash on September 2,

2009. On November 9, 2009, the TRS president Chandrasekhar Rao wrote to

55

the President of India about his intention to go on fast-unto-death in order to

fulfil the hopes and aspirations of the people of Telangana for a separate state.

He also publicly announced that the intended fast would start on November, 29,

2009, as planned.

. He also made a statement that, instead, his party was making an

1.5 Andhra Pradesh (November 29, 2009

1.5.01

from November 29, 2009 are still quite fresh in public memory. To recall, as

announced earlier, TRS President, K. Chandrasekhara Rao started his fast-untodeath

on November 29, 2009 demanding that the Central Government should

introduce the Telangana Bill in Parliament. Prior to his undertaking the fast, TRS

called upon student bodies, employees unions and various non-

organizations to join the movement. After the Telangana issue had resurfaced

around Assembly elections of 1999, the students, non-gazetted officials and

other organizations at this point of time once again got involved in the Telangana

movement. On the day of his fast, i.e. November 29, 2009, K. Chandrasekhara

Rao was arrested and taken to Khammam. On November 30, 2009 he reportedly

broke his fast but resumed it soon thereafter under pressure from vociferous and

agitating pro-Telangana elements. Following these developments, there was

simultaneous and wide-spread agitation and violence in Telangana region for a

few days, particularly on December 6-7, 2009, resulting in major damage to

public and private property and loss of life including a number of suicides.

Around the same time, a Joint Action Committee (JAC) was formed by the

students of Osmania and Kakatiya universities. The JAC started seriously

agitating for the cause of a separate Telangana, demanding an assurance for the

same. The agitations led to the closure of educational institutions and business

establishments throughout the Telangana region. Public transport services were

also suspended. During this period, reportedly over five thousand persons were

taken into preventive custody with a view to bringing the law and order situation

created by the agitations under control.

56

– December 31, 2010) The events and happenings in the state in the last one year starting gazetted officials‟

1.5.02

the political parties in the State Legislature was convened by the Chief Minister,

K.Rosaiah on December 7, 2009. It is learnt that all political parties, except CPI

(M), were in favour of a proposal to adopt a resolution in the State Assembly

for creation of a separate Telangana. The CPI (M) apparently referred to the

stand it had taken at the time of the Pranab Mukherjee Committee. The AIMIM

on the other hand observed that the proper forum to express its views would be

the Legislative Assembly. Taking into account the situation in the state and the

deliberations in this all party meeting, the Union Home Minister, P.Chidambaram

in the late evening of December 9, 2009 at New Delhi announced the decision of

the Central Government to initiate the process of forming the state of Telangana,

adding that an appropriate resolution would be moved in the State Assembly.

Based on this development TRS President, Chandrasekhara Rao gave up his fast

and the agitation was called off.

With the situation becoming grim, a meeting of the floor leaders of

1.5.03

Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, resulting in agitations and eruption of violence

in many districts. The agitations included

blockages, fast-unto-death programmes, relay hunger strikes etc. A near total

The above announcement, however, created a backlash in coastal bandh calls by political parties, road

bandh

December 11, 2009 at the call of political parties. The agitations continued during

the second and third weeks of December, 2009. Reportedly, nine MPs, one

hundred forty three MLAs and forty one MLCs submitted their resignations in

protest against the announcement on the formation of a separate Telangana.

was organized in all the districts of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema on

1.5.04

backlash and the strong sentiments expressed through agitations in all the

regions of the state as also the near vertical division on the issue among the

major political parties in the state, the Union Home Minister made another

statement on December 23, 2009 that the situation in the state had altered since

December 9, 2009 when the Central Government had announced that the

Looking at the totality of the situation, including the intensity of the

process

57

and an

perhaps thereby that moving such a resolution in the State Assembly was

appeared to be difficult at this point of time). The Home Minister, therefore, in

this statement emphasized the need for wide ranging consultations with all

political parties and groups and promised to take steps to involve all concerned

in the process. Although, this statement led to ending of agitations in coastal

Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, agitations restarted in Telangana region due

to the perceived change in the stand of the Government of India. At this point,

reportedly sixty three MLAs belonging to Telangana region (Congress

TDP

On December 30, 2009, a

Committee (TJAC) paralysing the entire region.

of the formation of a separate state of Telangana would be initiated appropriate resolution would be moved in the State Assembly (meaning – thirteen; – thirty seven; TRS – ten; BJP –one; PRP –two) submitted their resignation. bandh was called by the Telangana Joint Action

1.5.05

April 2010 the state witnessed agitations of varying kinds, the most intense being

from late November 2009 upto January 2010. Initially, these agitations were in

Telangana region, then after the December 9, 2009 announcement, in coastal

Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, and again back to Telangana region, post-

December 23, 2009 statement. The law and order machinery of the state took

appropriate action to bring the situation under control. A large number of cases

both under preventive and substantive sections of law were registered and the

needed arrests carried out. Since the agitations in Telangana region were for a

much longer time compared to coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, the

number of cases registered against agitators from Telangana was also much

higher. In all, over 1600 cases were registered involving more than 8000

agitators. The cases were classified in two categories, i.e., simple cases such as

Rasta Roko, Rail Roko, making provocative statements, instigating violence,

violation of prohibitory orders, insulting national leaders by garlanding their

statues with objectionable material and attempt to suicide etc. and serious cases

involving damage and burning of private properties, government properties and

assault on public servants. The state government has recently withdrawn all

simple cases totalling to 565 pertaining to the first category in the interest of the

58

career prospects of the youth and the students. The region-wise details of cases

withdrawn are as: Telangana

It is further understood that appropriate decision will be taken by the

Government from time to time on withdrawal of the remaining cases after

examining each case on its merit.

During the period starting from November 29, 2009 till the end of – 440; Coastal Andhra – 58 and Rayalaseema – 67.

1.5.06

Central Government invited the Presidents/senior leaders of the eight recognized

political parties of the state for a meeting on January 5, 2010 to deliberate on the

mechanism of the proposed consultations and to lay down a road map for the

same. In the meeting chaired by the Union Home Minister on the said date at

New Delhi and attended by the Presidents/Senior representatives of eight

recognized political parties

learnt that while TRS, BJP and CPI expressed the view that no further

consultations were necessary and that the process of creation of a separate state

of Telangana, as announced, should be initiated, the Congress Party, CPI(M),

AIMIM and the PRP conveyed that wide ranging consultations would be an

appropriate option at this stage. The TDP was represented by two leaders who

took divergent positions; with one favouring consultations and the other

supporting a separate state. Notwithstanding the diversity in their views on the

further steps to be taken, there was clear recognition of the need of the hour,

which was to ensure that peace and calm should return to the state at the

earliest. Understanding the serious law and order problems the state was facing,

all the parties issued an appeal to the people of Andhra Pradesh to maintain

peace and public order.

As indicated in the announcement of December 23, 2009, the 23, the opinions on the issue were quite divided. It is

1.5.07

however, different groups continued to support pro and anti division agitations.

This period also witnessed intra party/intra group rifts in approaches. In this

In the period following the above initiative of Central Government,

23

Communist Party of India (Marxists) (CPI(M), Communist Party of India (CPI), Telugu Desam Party (TDP),

All India Majlis Ittehaud-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), and Praja Rajyam Party

(PRP).

The parties that attended this meeting are: Indian National Congress (INC), Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP),

59

backdrop, the Government of India vide its decision dated February 3, 2010,

constituted the present Committee i.e.

s

and its Terms of Reference have already been covered in Approach and

Methodology of the Report. The Committee held its first meeting on February 13,

2010. Although, most political parties and other concerned groups started

cooperating with the Committee right from the beginning, the Bharatiya Janata

the “Committee for consultations on the ituation in Andhra Pradesh”. The details of the constitution of the Committee

Party (BJP) neither responded to the Committee‟s request to provide their inputs

nor joined in the deliberations with the Committee. Some groups from Telangana

region such as the lawyers, the representatives of students‟ JAC

reservations initially, but after observing the functioning of the Committee for

some time, came forward to provide their views through detailed memoranda

and also took part in extensive interactive sessions. The Committee was able to

establish its rapport and credibility very quickly with all the sections of the society

in the state which helped in the softening of the agitational mood and in the

smooth conduct of its work. By and large, a general atmosphere of peace and

calm and rational working conditions returned to the state which enabled the

Committee to complete its programme of deliberations, interactions and visits to

different parts, as per its schedule.

, etc. expressed

1.5.08

events that took place during the tenure of the Committee, which had drawn

widespread attention of the society. These three events were: (i) the byeelections

to the twelve Assembly segments in five districts in Telangana region

held in August 2010; (ii) the agitation for the demand for extension of 42%

reservation in the Group-I posts in the Government for which recruitment is

made under the aegis of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and (iii)

It may, however, be relevant to mention here the three important

the agitation by lawyers‟ groups in Telangana demanding reservations in the law

officers‟ posts of the

their outcome by the Committee.

60

state Government. Due note was taken of these events and

1.5.09

necessitated by the resignations, in February 2010, of twelve MLAs (ten

belonging to TRS, one BJP and one TDP. The TDP MLA resigned from the party

in protest agai

joined TRS under protest and in support of the demand

Telangana.

TRS candidates including the one TDP candidate who had switched over to TRS,

the twelfth seat was won by the BJP candidate with TRS support from Nizamabad

urban constituency defeating the PCC President, D. Srinivas. In these byeelections,

there was vast increase in the votes polled by TRS candidates as

compared to the previous elections. One view on the outcome of all that had

happened was that the status quo had been restored and the twelve sitting MLAs

who had resigned had returned. However, if one sees the margins, it would be

noticed that despite the fact that the overall polling in these bye-elections had

dipped by about two per cent (from 66% to 64%) as compared to the previous

elections, the separate Telangana sentiment aggressively and vociferously

aroused by the TRS had appealed to the people in very large measure. Although

the Congress and the TDP candidates also echoed pro-Telangana sentiment, they

did not have as much impact on the public perception as the TRS candidates did.

While the TDP faired rather badly, even the Congress party was not able to

acquit itself well. It is also to be noticed that the twelve constituencies are

located in five districts of Telangana region and cover a wide cross section of

society. The bye-election results, thus, did provide a further fillip to the separate

Telangana demand.

The bye-elections for the twelve Assembly segments were nst the party‟s ambivalent stand on Telangana issue and later for separate state of While eleven seats were won comfortably with huge majority by the

1.5.10

the Osmania University JAC started an agitation for postponing the Screening

Test for Group-I posts [conducted by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

(APPSC)] demanding 42% reservation of the posts for Telangana. A

press this demand was called on September 5, 2010,

However, the examination was conducted successfully on September 5, generally

peacefully all over the state, barring a few stray incidents. In the examination

61

centre located in the B.Ed. College at Osmania University, Hyderabad, the

Telangana students entered the examination hall and tore up the question

papers. APPSC decided on 14

for all candidates whose centre was at B.Ed. College, Osmania University and

also for those who had missed the same due to disturbances caused by

Telangana

all those who wanted to appear on October 25, 2010 at three centres in

Hyderabad. 1037 candidates appeared for the examination on this day. The

overall attendance for the examination i.e. applicants vis-à-vis candidates actually

attended was 44.5% in the state and about 40.6% in Telangana. The question of

reservation for employment in Government jobs has been discussed in detail in a

separate Chapter subsequently in the Report.

On the reservation for Group-I posts, the Telangana activists and bandh to the day of the examination. th September to conduct Group-I examination again bandh on September 5, 2010. The re-examination was conducted for

1.5.11

time on the issue of discrimination against them in appointments as law

officers/standing counsels. While they had represented about this to the state

Government and the Advocate General in February 2010, in September 2010 the

agitation became serious through boycott of the Courts in Telangana region and

also the High Court and through indefinite fasts etc. While this issue has been

discussed at length subsequently in the Report, it will be worthwhile to mention

here that the state Government constituted a Committee of three Ministers

namely Dr. (Mrs) Geetha Reddy, Minister for Information & Public Relations and

Tourism & Culture (from Telangana), Sri. Mopidevi Venkata Ramana Rao,

Minister for Law & Courts, Technical Education, (from coastal Andhra) and Sri P.

Ramachandra Reddy, Minister for Forests, Environment, Science and Technology

(from Rayalaseema) - representing all the three regions - in September 2010 to

ensure regional and social balance in the appointment of law officers and

standing counsel. It is learnt that the Committee has since completed its work

and submitted the report to the state government, fulfilling its mandate for

providing regional and social justice in these appointments. Details pertaining to

The lawyers of Telangana region have been agitating for a long

the lawyers‟ demands are also covered in the Chapter on “Employment in

Government”

62.