మంగళవారం, అక్టోబర్ 29, 2013
సోమవారం, అక్టోబర్ 28, 2013
గురువారం, అక్టోబర్ 24, 2013
బుధవారం, అక్టోబర్ 23, 2013
మంగళవారం, అక్టోబర్ 22, 2013
సోమవారం, అక్టోబర్ 21, 2013
చరిత్ర నుంచి నేర్చుకోని సీమాంధ్ర నేతలు
ప్రముఖ తమిళ చరిత్రకారుడు ప్రొఫెసర్ ఎ ఆర్ వేంకటాచలపతి September 28, 2013 న హిందూ దినపత్రికలో రాసిన ఈ వ్యాసం ఆసక్తి కరమైన విషయాలను ఆవిష్కరించింది. ఇప్పుడు "హైదరాబాద్ మాదే" అంటోన్న ఆంధ్రా సోదరులు అప్పుడు (1950-53లో) "మద్రాస్ మాదే" అని ఎలా చతికిల పడ్డారో ఇందులో రాసారు.
........................
The Hindu, September 28, 2013
Seeing Madras in Hyderabad
The bitterness that existed in the 1950s between Tamil and Telugu speakers on Chennai parallels the fight for the Andhra Pradesh capital in the Telangana agitation
We learn from history,” we are often told tritely, “that
we do not learn from history!” Perhaps there is more than a grain of
truth in this clichéd observation, and this is evident from the ongoing
Telangana crisis. So what did we fail to learn from the 1950s agitation
that led to the formation of an Andhra province in the first place?
It
is now forgotten history that the city of Chennai was the bone of
contention between the advocates of a separate province of
Telugu-speaking people and the then Madras State (Tamil Nadu) in the
late 1940s and early 1950s.
Though Telugu speakers,
about 15 per cent of the population compared to about 70 per cent of
Tamil speakers (1931 Census), constituted a minority in the city, they
had a high visibility for a variety of historical reasons. With Indian
nationalist politics at the threshold of its mass phase combined with
the emergence of a linguistic and regional consciousness, legitimate
demands were voiced for a separate province of Andhra as early as the
first decade of the 20th century. During the early 1910s, B. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya wrote extensively in the pages of
The Hindu
articulating this demand.
Largest stumbling block
By
the time of its Nagpur session in 1920, the Indian National Congress
had reorganised itself on linguistic lines and the newly-formed Andhra
Pradesh Congress Committee demanded the city of Chennai for its
jurisdiction. Though this demand was articulated intermittently through
the subsequent decades, it came to a head only as independence became
imminent. However the Telugu demand for Chennai got tied to the
formation of a separate Andhra state and turned out to be the single
largest stumbling block to the creation of Andhra state.
In
1938, with the formation of the first Congress ministry, the Madras
Legislative Assembly recommended the formation of ‘separate Provinces
for the Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Kerala regions.’ The demand for
Andhra got enmeshed in Congress factional politics with intense rivalry
between C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) and T. Prakasam. The fall of the
Prakasam ministry in the Madras Province, largely as a result of
Congress factional politics shortly after Independence, further fuelled
the demand for a separate Andhra province.
In June
1948, the Constituent Assembly of India appointed a commission headed by
S.K. Dar to examine the formation of new provinces. The Dar commission
recommended reorganisation not on “linguistic consideration but rather
upon administrative convenience.” In the wake of the calamitous
Partition, this found support in Nehru.
In its Jaipur
session in December 1948, the Congress appointed a Linguistic Provinces
Committee with Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya (the
JVP Committee), which in its report presented in April 1949, accepted
the Dar Commission’s views by recommending the postponement of
linguistic reorganisation by a few years. But Andhra was an exception.
“In some ways,” the committee observed, “the demand for an Andhra
Province has a larger measure of consent behind it than other similar
demands.” However, it added ominously that, “Yet there is controversy
about certain areas as well as about the city of Madras.”
Therefore
the thinking of the Congress leadership at the top was clear and
unequivocal right from the beginning. In November 1949, the Congress
Working Committee recommended the formation of a separate Andhra
province excluding the city of Madras. Inextricably linked with the
demand for Chennai, the declaration of the Andhra province came to be
delayed by a few more years. It also occasioned the unnecessary and
tragic loss of lives and property, and caused teething problems to the
fledgling nation state.
A Partition Committee was
formed in November 1949 and the Madras Cabinet approved its report in
January 1950, but was mired in controversy with T. Prakasam signing a
note of dissent that the apparatus of the new province should reside in
Madras city until a new capital was ready.
Andhra
continued to be on a boil. It all at once came down to one issue: while
the protesters demanded a separate Andhra state and the government was
more than eager to grant it, the claim over Madras city stalled the
issue.
Widening fault lines
As
the agitation for a separate Andhra got protracted, the fault lines
within the Andhra Congress widened. It became obvious that those
advocating the interests of Rayalaseema and the coastal districts of
Andhra did not see eye to eye. To this may be added the view that Madras
city should become a Chief Commissioner’s province, effectively under
the control of the Central government, or a joint capital or even a
Union Territory — reminiscent of the story of Solomon’s justice over the
disputed child.
The first general elections of
January 1952 added further variables. The Congress failed to win a
majority in the Madras Presidency, weakening the hand of K. Kamaraj, its
leader, and paving the way for Rajaji to form a Congress government; T.
Prakasam too lost badly. Despite Rajaji’s view that the cry for
linguistic provinces was a “tribal demand,” he supported the formation
of an Andhra province but without conceding Chennai.
Various
Andhra leaders such as Neelam Sanjiva Reddy and V.V. Giri — the
philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan not excluded — put pressure on the
Central government. Nehru not only refused the demand for the
appointment of a commission without a general agreement but also ruled
out a plebiscite. By July 1952, Nehru declared that “there ha[d] been so
much argument on this subject that no one can say anything new or
worthwhile.”
This, however, was to change with one
as-yet-unknown Congressman’s fast. The death of Potti Sriramulu on
December 15, 1952 led to large-scale violence in Andhra. Despite Nehru’s
bold statement in Parliament that “we must not mix up various things
because a riotous mob did something,” the Government of India appointed
in December 1952 a committee under Justice K.N. Wanchoo. Wanchoo’s
report, submitted in early February 1953, favoured the creation of the
Andhra state and recommended that, until a new capital was built, the
Andhra government could be lodged in Chennai. Nehru was inclined to
accept this recommendation but was stoutly opposed by Rajaji.
The
popular nationalist writer and journalist, Kalki — the alter ego of
Rajaji — captured the dangers of declaring Chennai the temporary
capital: This move could pave the way for the influx of excited
agitators from outside leading to violence triggering police action. The
ensuing loss of lives would lead to further claims on the ground that
the soil of Chennai had been sanctified by the blood of martyrs. Soon
the city would be termed ‘a disputed area’ and would lead to unending
controversy and agitation, like Kashmir.
In the light
of this premonition Rajaji even went to the extent of threatening to
resign from the premiership finally convincing Nehru this move would
only result in “unseemly agitation, acrimonious controversies and
administrative conflicts.”
By 1953 the question of
Chennai was pretty much settled. The bitterness between Andhra and Tamil
Nadu soon evaporated, as a united Andhra Pradesh was forged over the
decades, and a new and thriving capital built. That this has not lasted
is the present issue.
Issues of identity
What
lessons does this now-forgotten story teach us? Is it a case of history
repeating itself as tragedy? If issues of identity and territorial
claims in so-called more enlightened times could have been so
acrimonious, little needs to be said about the implications for more
cynical times such as ours. The delay in addressing genuine popular
concerns makes them an electoral issue leading to competitive
inter-party and intra-party politics. Decisions taken in the heat of
large-scale violence and bloodshed tend to be not so well thought out.
Appointing commission after commission in the hope that agitations will
dissipate simply doesn’t work. When popular mobilisation gathers force,
fault lines become chasms. Soft-pedalling on implementation confounds
matters. This is amply borne out by the Seemandhra backlash. One hopes
that the Central government will keep in mind the Chennai lesson in
deciding the fate of Hyderabad.
(This essay draws from the author’s earlier contribution to A.R. Venkatachalapathy (ed.)
, Chennai, Not Madras: Perspectives on the City,
Marg, Mumbai, 2006.)
ఆదివారం, అక్టోబర్ 20, 2013
371 D: పెటాకులకూ పెళ్ళి మంత్రాలే చదవాలంటున్నారు! ఏం చేద్దాం !!
అది సీమంద్రుల ఆత్మవంచనకు పరాకాష్ట అని నా అభిప్రాయం.
ఆర్టికల్ 371 D ని 33 వ రాజ్యంగా
సవరణ ద్వారా 1973 లో జై ఆంధ్రా
ఉద్యమం తరువాత ప్రవేశ పెట్టారు. అప్పటి దాకా ఉన్న ముల్కి
రూల్స్ చత్తబద్ధమెనని, తెలంగాణా లో ఆంధ్రా వాళ్ళు
ఉద్యోగాలు పొందాలంటే ఇక్కడే ప్రాథమిక విద్య అభ్యసించి ఉండాలని
సుప్రీంకోర్ట్ తీర్పునిచ్చింది. దీనిని వ్యతిరేకిస్తూ జై ఆంద్ర ఉద్యమం
వచ్చింది. ఆంధ్రా ఉద్యమాన్ని చల్లార్చి తెలంగాణా ఆంధ్రా కలిసి ఉండేందుకు ఆరు
సూత్రాల పథకం పేరుతో ఒక
కొత్త నాటకానికి ఇందిరాగాంధీ తెరలేపింది. దానిని రాజ్యాంగం లోని ఆర్టికల్ 371 D గా
చేర్చింది.. రెండు ప్రాతాలు కలిసి
ఆంద్ర ప్రదేశ్ అనే రాష్ట్రం కొనసాగినంత
కాలం ఆర్టికల్ 371D ఉంటుందని
అందులో మొదటి పేరా లోనే
ఇలా రాసారు....371D. Special
provisions with respect to the state of Andhra Pradesh: (1) The president may
by order made with respect to the state of Andhra Pradesh provide, having
regard to the requirements of the state as a whole, for equitable opportunities
and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of state, in the
matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different
provisions may be made for various parts of the state. అంటే ఇది
కలిసి ఉన్నంతవరకు మాత్రమే ఉండే పెళ్లి మత్రాల
లాంటిది. కానీ అవే మంత్రాలు
విడాకులకు కూడా వర్తిస్తాయని కొందరు
సీమంధ్ర నేతలు వాదిస్తున్నారు. దీన్ని
సవరించాలంటే పార్లమెంటు లో మూడింట రెండు
వంతుల మెజారిటీ కావాలి కాబట్టి అది అంత సులభం
కాదని వితండ వాదన చేస్తున్నారు.
వాళ్ళది దింపుడు కల్లం ఆశ!
ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ ఒక రాష్ట్రంగా కలిసి
ఉన్నంతవరకు ఈ నియమం వర్తిస్తుంది
అంటే విడిపోతే వర్తించదు అనే కదా అర్థం.
అలా కాదని, కలిపి ఉంచడానికి ఎలాగైతే
మంత్రాలు చదివారో అవే విడాకులకు కూడా
చదవాలని వాళ్ళు వాదిస్తున్నారు. ఎవరి తుత్తి వారిది!
చూద్దాం! దీని గురించి రాజ్యాంగంలోని
భాగాలు, దానిమీద డా . శ్రీధరస్వామి గారి
వ్యాఖ్యానం ఇక్కడ ఇస్థున్నాను.
ఓపిగ్గా చదవండి.
THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1973
Statement of Objects and Reasons
appended to the Constitution
(Thirty-third Amendment) Bill, 1973
which was enacted as
the Constitution (Thirty-second
Amendment) Act, 1973
STATEMENT
OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
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 provisions 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 is so far as it related to
the safeguards envisaged for the Telangana area. Owing to a variety of causes, the working
of the safeguards
gave rise to
a certain amount
of dissatisfaction sometimes in
the Telangana area and sometimes in the other areas of the State. Measures were devised from time to time to resolve
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 problems with a view to
achieving fuller emotional integration of the people
of Andhra Pradesh. On the 21st September, 1973, they
suggested certain 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 this matter of
education, employment and career
prospects in public services.
This formula has received
wide
support in Andhra Pradesh and has been endorsed by the
State Government.
2.
This Bill has
been brought forward to provide the
necessary constitutional authority for giving effect to the Six-Point
Formula in so far as it relates to the
provision of equitable opportunities for
people of different areas of the State
in the matter of admission to educational institutions and public employment and
constitution of an Administrative
Tribunal with jurisdiction
to deal with
certain disputes and grievances relating to public services. The Bill
also seeks to empower Parliament to legislate for
establishing a Central University in the State and contains provisions of an
incidental and consequential nature
including the provision for the
validation of certain appointments
made in the past. As the
Six-Point Formula provides for
the discontinuance of the Regional Committee constituted under clause
(1) of article 371 of the Constitution, the Bill
also provides for the repeal of that clause.
NEW
DELHI;
UMA SHANKAR DIKSHIT.
The
12th December, 1973.
-------------------------
THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-SECOND
AMENDMENT) ACT, 1973
[3rd May,
1974.]
An Act
further to amend the Constitution of India.
BE
it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-fourth Year of the Republic
of India as follows:-
1.
Short title and commencement (1).- This Act may be called
the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973.
(2)
It shall come
into force on such
date_666 as the
Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette,
appoint.
2.
Amendment of article
371.-Clause (1) of article 371
of the Constitution shall
be omitted, and in the marginal heading
to that article, the words
"Andhra Pradesh," shall be omitted.
3.
Insertion of new articles 371D and 371E.-After article 371C of the Constitution,
the following articles shall be inserted, namely:-
"371D. Special
provisions with respect to
the State of
Andhra Pradesh.-(1) The President may by order made with respect to the
State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the
requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and
facilities for the people belonging
to different parts of the State, in the
matter of public employment
and in the matter of
education, and different provisions may be made for various
parts of the State.”
(2) An order made under clause (1)
may, in particular,-
(a)
require the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts
in civil service of, or any class or classes of civil
posts under, the State into different local cadres for
different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such
principles and procedure as may be
specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so
organised;
(b)
specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the
local area-
(i)
For direct recruitment to posts in any local
cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an order under this article
or constituted otherwise) under the
State Government;
(ii)
For direct recruitment to posts
in any cadre under any local authority within the State; and
(iii) For the purposes of admission to
any University within the State or
to any other
educational institution which is
subject to the control of the State Government;
(c)
specify the extent
to which, the manner
in which and
the conditions subject to which,
preference or reservation shall be given or made-
(i)
In the matter of direct recruitment to posts in any such
cadre referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this
behalf in the order;
(ii)
in the matter
of admission to any such
University or other educational institution
referred to in sub-clause (b) as
may be specified in this behalf
in the order,
to
or in favour of candidates who have resided or
studied for any period
specified in the order in the
local area in respect of such cadre,
University or other educational
institution, as the case may be.
(3)
The President may, by order,
provide for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal
for the State of Andhra Pradesh to
exercise such jurisdiction,
powers and authority [including any
jurisdiction, power and authority
which immediately before the commencement of
the Constitution (Thirty-second
Amendment) Act, 1973, was exercisable by
any court (other than the Supreme Court)
or by any tribunal or other authority] as
may be specified in the order with respect
to the following matters,
namely:---
(a)
appointment, allotment or
promotion to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such
class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such class
or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the
State, as may be specified in the order;
(b) seniority of persons appointed,
allotted or promoted to such class or
classes of posts in any civil service of the State,
or to
such class or classes of civil
posts under the State, or to such class
or classes of posts under the
control of any local authority within
the State, as may be specified in the order;
(c) such other conditions of service
of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of posts in
any civil service of the State or to such class or classes of civil posts under
the State or to such class or
classes of posts under the control
of any local authority within the State, as may be
specified in the order.
(4) An order made under clause (3)
may-
(a)
authorise the Administrative Tribunal to receive representations for the
redress of grievances relating to any matter
within its jurisdiction as the
President may specify in the order and
to make such orders thereon as
the Administrative Tribunal deems fit;
(b) contain such provisions with
respect to the powers and authorities and
procedure of the Administrative
Tribunal (including provisions with respect
to the powers of the Administrative Tribunal to punish for contempt of itself) as the
President may deem necessary;
(c)
provide for the transfer to the Administrative
Tribunal of such classes of proceedings, being proceedings relating to
matters within its jurisdiction and pending before any court
(other than the Supreme Court) or tribunal
or other authority
immediately before the commencement of such order, as may be
specified in the order;
(d) contain such supplemental,
incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees and as
to limitation, evidence or for the
application of any law for the time being in force subject to any exceptions
or modifications) as the President may deem necessary.
(5)
The order of the Administrative Tribunal finally disposing of any case shall
become effective upon its
confirmation by the
State Government or on the expiry of three months from the date on which
the order is made, whichever is earlier:
Provided that
the State Government may, by
special order made
in writing and for reasons to be
specified therein, modify or annul any order or the Administrative Tribunal before it ecomes
effective and in such a
case, the order of the Administrative Tribunal shall have effect
only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be.
(6) Every special order made by the
State Government under the proviso to
clause (5) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before both Houses of the State
Legislature.
(7)
The High Court
for the State shall not have
any powers of superintendence over the Administrative Tribunal and no
court (other than the Supreme Court) or tribunal shall exercise
any jurisdiction, power or
authority in respect
of any matter
subject to the jurisdiction, power
or authority of, or in
relation to, the Administrative Tribunal.
(8)
If the President is satisfied that the continued existence of the Administrative Tribunal is not necessary, the President may
by order abolish the Administrative Tribunal and make such
provisions in such order as
he may deem fit for the transfer and disposal
of cases pending before the
Tribunal immediately before such abolition.
(9)
Notwithstanding any judgment,
decree or order of any
court, tribunal or other authority,-
(a) no appointment, posting, promotion
or transfer of any person-
(i)
made before the 1st day of November, 1956, to any post under the Government of, or any local authority within, the State
of Hyderabad as it existed before that
date; or
(ii)
made before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act,
1973, to any post under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, the
State of Andhra Pradesh; and
(b)
no action taken or thing done by or before any person referred to in
sub-clause (a),
shall
be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal or
void merely on the ground that the appointment, posting, promotion or transfer
of such person was not made in accordance with any law, then
in force, providing for any
requirement as to residence within the State of Hyderabad or, as the case may be,
within any part of the State of Andhra
Pradesh, in respect of such
appointment, posting, promotion
or transfer.
(10)
The provisions of this article and of any order made
by the President thereunder shall
have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any
other law for the time being in force.
371E.
Establishment of Central University
in Andhra Pradesh.- Parliament may by law provide for
the establishment of a University in the State of Andhra Pradesh.".
4.
Amendment of Seventh Schedule.-In
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, in List I, in entry 63, for
the words "Delhi University, and", the words, figures and letter
"Delhi University; the University established
in pursuance of article 371E;" shall be substituted.
.................. .............................
Revival of Mulki Rules
and Telangana Regional Committee
Presidential Order
Violated-GO 610 Buried by the Government
---Prof. S. Sreedhara Swamy
An examination of 32nd Constitutional amendment
and Art. 371-D clearly establishes, that the MULKI Rules , which
became operative by virtue of the Firman issued by HEH the Nizam,
in Hyderabad state, of which the Telangana was an integral part and the
clauses mentioned in 371-D are fresh rules, they do not make a mention of Mulki Rules,
nor do they specify that the revised local cadres are substitutes to Mulki rules.
This aspect needs careful study. Even if Go 610 is implemented and
the resulting vacancies are filled, they will be filled by the brothers,
sisters, children of Andhra Employees who became locals by virtue of studies.
It is a Multiplier Effect. Andhra’s first occupied vacancies in
violation of Presidential Order, settled here, they brought their kith and kin
from Andhra areas , who studied here for four years and thus became
locals. This is a serious problem with unimaginative dimension.
Similarly, there is no Provision anywhere, in
Constitutional amendments that the Telangana Regional Committee is abolished or
is withdrawn. It is only a political resolution No 6 in
the Six point formula, which mentions that the continuation of Mulki Rules
and Telangana regional Committee become unnecessary. It is
time that we educate about this and understand the implications. Struggle for
the revival of Mulki Rules and Telangana Regional Committee by the
concerted Political Action, and or by Legal Action, are now essential.
From
this angle let us give a fresh look to Supreme Court Judgment, Six Point
Formula and Presidential Order, and Girglani Commission
Recommendations, and the recent political voices from Dominant Andhra Political
Leadership.
Mulki Rules Held Valid By the Supreme Court, October 1972
Mulki Rules held
valid by the Supreme Court, by the Five member Bench headed by Justice S.M.Sikri,
allowing the appeal. The judgment of the AP High Court of the Full Bench and
the Division Bench are set aside and writ petition No 2524 of 1967 is
dismissed. (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 827, The Director of Industries
and Commerce, Govt of AP Vs V. Venkat Reddy)
Important References
Quoted:
n States Reorganisation Act
, 1956 Articles 3, 4
n Constitutional Provisions : 35 ( a
), (b ), 13, 14, 16(3), 371,372
n HEH the Nizam’s Firman Dated
25th Ramzan 1337 H
Essence of the Judgment
.Mulki Rules were
in force in Hydearbad State, by virtue of the Firman of HEH
the Nizam Dated 25th Ramzan 1337 H (
corresponding to 1919) before joining Indian Union, in 1948.The Constitution of
India came into force on January 1950. The state of Andhra Pradesh was
reconstituted on November 1, 1956.The words “laws in force in the territory of
India” in Art 35(b) also occur in 372 which continue in force, existing laws
which existed not only in the Provinces of British India but in all Indian
states. In the context of Art. 35 (b) and 372, what has to
be seen is not whether the state of Hyderabad was part of the territory of
India before the commencement of the constitution, but whether its territory is
included in India after its commencement. The same test applies to the old
provinces or part of provinces of British India.
The second question is
whether or not Mulki Rules Continue---the essence of 35(b) is not
only to continue the MulkiRules, but also to continue them until
Parliament repeals, amends or alters them. It cannot be denied that that the
purpose of reorganization of States is not to take away Fundamental Rights.
Accordingly “ we are of the view that themulki rules continued in force even after the
constitution of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the reorganization
of States, Act, 1956 “(para 18 )
Background To
Introduction/Continuation of Mulki Rules
The supreme court
extensively quoted from earlier judgment in justification for Mulki Rules
œ Due to political and historical
reasons, Hyderabad state remained isolated. There were no adequate
educational facilities.
œ There were very few opportunities
to enter public service in competition with others from outside the state.
œ Urdu which was not the language of
90% of the people was the official language of Administration.
œ SRC suggested the continuance of
the Telangana region as a separate state.
œ An agreement of the elders of both
the regions was reached to reserve to them the benefits of securing employment
on the strength of their residence.
œ The formation of a Regional
Standing Committee was also agreed upon.
What exactly are Mulki Rules
In, urdu language, mulk is
a nation, and the residents are Mulkis.The fight for jobs for the mulkis had
a longchequerred history. In the present context, it is necessary to
understand the origin:
n The Mulki Rules formed
part of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations promulgated in obedience to
His Exalted Highness the Nizam’s Firman dated 25th Ramzan 1337 Hijri ,
corresponding to 1919 A.D
n The State of Hyderabad was then a
native Indian State, which had not acceded to the Dominion of India
after the Indian Independence Act, 1947.
n Article 39 of Hyderabad Civil
Service Rules, as contained in Chapter III of Regulations reads as follows,
Appendix N.
“
39. No person will be appointed in any Superior or Inferior services
without specific sanction of His exalted Highness, if he is not a Mulki,
in terms of the rules laid down in Appendix “ N”
Clause
6 of Rules:
1) A person shall be called a Mulki if----
a) by birth he is a subject of
the Hyderabad State, or
b) by residence
in the Hyderabad State, be entitled to be a Mulki, or
c) his father having completed
15 years of Service was in the Government Service at the time of his birth , or
d) she is a wife of a
person who is a Mulki.
3) A person shall be called a Mulki who
was a permanent resident of the Hyderabad State for at least 15
years and has abandoned the idea of returning to the place of his residence and
has obtained an affidavit to that effect on a prescribed form attested by a
Magistrate.
7) Presribes the
contents of the application to be made for grant of a Mulki Certificate
and required the applicant, among other things, to say:
a,
b, c, ----------------------
d) Where
was he he residing, prior to his residing in the Hyderabad
State
e)
Place of birth and nationality of his father and grand father
f,
g, ----------------
h) From what period the applicant is permanently
residing in the Hyderabad State and whether he has abandoned the
idea of returning to his native land
I,
j, --------------
9)
Stipulates conditions for verification of the contents by the Police
Department.
Constitutional
safeguards
Parliament, in effect,
gave statutory recognition to this agreement
( Gentlemen’s Agreement ) by making the necessary constitutional amendment in
Art.371., providing for the constitution of the Telangana Regional
Committee—the Constitution ( Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, inter alia-
substituted a new Article 371 for the old, the relevant part, the relevant part
of which reads as follows
“ 371, Special Provision
with respect to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, and
Bombay—Notwithstanding any thing in this constitution the President may by
Order made with respect to the States of Andhra Pradesh and provide for the
constitution of 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
regional committees.”
.—( Para 11 of the
Supreme Court judgment )
The Supreme Court also
examined the validity of Mulki Rules in the context of Section 16 (3
), and held Mulki Rules valid because the “ the Public Employment
(Requirement as to Residence ) Act, 1957” received the assent of the
President, and came into forceon March 21, 1959 as AP Employment(
Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959. The preamble reads “An act to
make in pursuance of clause (3) of article 16 of the Constitution
special provisions for requirement as to residence in regard to certain classes
of public employment in certain areas and to repeal existing laws prescribing
any such recruitment.”
Brief Note (c ) of
the Supreme Court Judgement says that the effect of
reorganization of States made under Articles 3 and 4 of making Telangana a part
of a new State of Andhra pradesh must be ignored under Article 35(b) and hence
the Mulki Rules continue in force, even after constitution of the
State of Andhra Pradesh, Under the Reorganisation of
States Act, 1956.
---------It cannot be
denied that the purpose of states reorganization of states is not to take away
fundamental rights. ( of Telangana People) (
Para 17 of the Judgement)
Six Point Formula
Evolved on 21-09-1973 and luke warm steps taken.
After the Supreme Court
held that Mulki Rules are valid there was Jai Andhra Movement for
scrapping Mulki Rules and for a State without any conditional ties.
The political agreement evolved by the Andhra, Telangana, and National
Political leadership is known as Six point Formula. Earlier several attempts
were made in the nature of Gentlemen’s Agreement, All Party Accord, Eight point
Formula, Five point Formula etc to some how continue the hotch pocharrangement
for the continuation of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Six points are:
1. There should be greater financial allocations
for the development of Backward Regions, and Capital city of Hyderabad A
State Level Planning Board with legislators from Backward regions, together
with experts be created and Sub-boards should be created for backward
regions-----No concrete measures were taken more so for Telangana Region.
2. In educational
institutions in the State, to give preference to local candidates a state level
policy should be evolved.. In the capital city of Hyderabad, to
augment educational facilities, a Central University should be
established.---This has resulted in seven years of study in the regional
areas in lieu of 15 years of residence in the Telangana region. University of Hyderabad, has
neither helped Telangana students nor academics, as it was a NationalUniversity.
3. Up to a certain fixed level
of recruitment local candidates should be preferred, this policy
should be followed even in promotions giving preference to local candidates--- This
gave way for Zonal System, four years of study in lieu of Mulki Rules.
This aspect will be discussed in a greater detail, separately.
4. In respect of recruitment, seniority, promotions
etc to resolve the problems Administrative Tribunals should be created, and the
decisions of these Tribunals shall be binding on the Government.---- These
Tribunals only prolonged the process of rendering justice, rather than solving
the problems. Recent Tribunal Orders on GO 610 are a few examples
5. To give effect to the above
issues, to overcome legal hurdles, the President of India should be empowered
to make Constitutional amendments--- This gave way for 32nd amendment,
creation of 371-D, Presidential Orders, which were systematically violated by successive
governments in the state, dominated by political, and administrative dominance
of Andhra and Rayalaseema.
6. If the above conditions are fulfilled, the
continuation of Mulki Rules and Telangana Regional
Committee become unnecessary. While above conditions
1 to 5 were not
implemented, the sixth point was the only point that was immediately implanted,
because it served the interests of Andhra and Rayala Seema regions.
Review of Six-point
Formula
n The thirty-second Amendment Act
omits clause (1) of Art.371 and makes special provision with respect to the
State of Andhra Pradesh by inserting new clause 371-D. It also
empowers the parliament to provide by Law, for the establishment of a
University in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
n 371-D Special Provisions with
respect to the State of Andhra pradesh.
(Popularly known as the Presidential Order, 1975 developed from
these provisions)
1. The President may by order
made with respect to the state of Andhra pradesh provide, having regard to the
state as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people
belonging to different parts of the state, in the matter of public employment,
and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various
parts of the State.
2. An Order made under Cl (1)
may , in particular:
a) Require the State Government to organize any class or classes
of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes of civil posts of the
State and allot in accordance with such principles and procedures as
may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadre
so organized.
b) specify any part or parts of the state which shall be regarded
as the local area
(----there are several details regarding Tribunals etc, which are
not reproduced here------)
n 371-E Establishment of Central University in
Andhra Pradesh
Review of the Six Point Formula and the Presidential Order.
It is clear that no serious efforts were made in respect of point (1).
In respect of Para (2 ) admission procedures were evolved giving
preference to local candidates., which is a 4 years of study instead of a Mulki Candidate.Central University is
no doubt established in Hyderabad city. This is more a national
University in nature, rather than augmenting facilities for Telangana students.
Neither the faculty, nor the students are selected from Telangana region. Para
(3 ) is supposed to be taken care by local cadre/ zonal System under
Presidential order. It is surprising to note there are so many inconsitencies and fallcies,
when Mulki Rules are set aside. A candidate is a local for admissions
in educational institution, and non-local for employment, to cite an example.The children
ofMulki candidates, because of the studies elsewhere, by transfers have
become non-locals, whereas, children of Andhra settlers in Telangana have
become locals because of studies here------
Much before 1975 Presidential Order, about 25000 candidates, who
obtained Bogus Mulki Certificates and occupied the vacancies meant
for Mulki Candidates. This was sought to be
rectified by GO Ms No 36 Dated 21-1-1969, they were never sent back nor
action was taken for producing False Bogus Mulki certificates.Thease issues
were dragged into legal battle which finally culminated in the
Supreme Court Judgment of 1972, validating Mulki Rules. With the
Presidential Order, 1975, District local cadres, , Zonal system and Zonal
Cadres, Reservations in Gazetted Posts, Secretariat and HODs,
Controversy of city of Hyderabad etc are well known. We are not going
into details here. By the time GO Ms 610 of 1985 was issued, it was estimated
by a Committee of three IAS officers that 58, 962 non locals are occupying the
posts in Zones V & VI- Telangana Area.
In this long and historical process the Appointment of Girglani Commission,
its recommendations, the Report of the House Committee, the Final Report of the
Commission and periodical announcements that the Report of the GirglaniCommission
would be implemented in toto, are known facts and experiences. .The
Employees and Political Leaders were taken aback when Go No 72 was issued
recently in total and blatant violation of Presidential Order, and the
recommendations of the Girglani commiss.ion. Political Leadership of
Andhra and Rayalaseema have raised a banner of Open revolt They are
proclaiming that no retrospective effect will be allowed, not a single employee
would be allowed to be transferred., back to Andhra and Rayalaseema regions.
Some people have gone against Go 610, and Go 72. to the High court of
Andhra Pradesh. Leadership is openly assuring financial help and supporting all
those employees who would go to court against the process of
implementation. It will be surprising to note that in GO Ms No 564
Dated 5-12-1985, the employees from Coastal Andhra&Telangana when
posted to Rayalaseemawere sent back immediately , if
necessary by using physical force.
Inherent Defects in Zonal System
· Even
though, in the wake of Jai Andhra Agitation, Andhra, Telangana and National
Political powers had agreed for Six Point Formula to provide Oxygen to a dying
state of Andhra Pradesh, the experience shows it had inherent weaknesses.
· Instead
of three regions, the state was divided into six zones, which have serious
implications, in employment sector.
· The
children of state wide officers study in different
schools, and being the locals of Telangana, they become non-locals to
Telangana, and vice versa.
n In the absence of recruitment in Govt sector,
people migrate to different states. Naturally those children
who study outside the state, cannot get become locals or non-locals, and are
permanently denied jobs in AP, even though their parents are born , brought up,
educated in Andhra Pradesh.
· Now
that the Mulki Rules were not implemented properly earlier, and
Presidential Orders now, those who have violated law who should have been
prosecuted criminally, are not only enjoying the fruits but are dictating terms
to Telanganites.
· Those
employees who came to Hyderabad, under the pretext of non existing, VII
zone, in utter violation of Presidential Order, claim that we
have been staying here in Telangana for the last thirty years, and now how can
we go back.
· Added
to injury, even if vacancies are created and recruitment starts, the children
of Andhra’s who came here in violation of Presidential Orders, would
again get jobs because they have become locals by virtue of studies.----
Perpetuation of violations and Multiplier effect.
· Those
children of Andhras, who came here for business, and several other reasons
have become locals by virtue of studies and get jobs meant for Telangana Youth.
The same people are now opposing vehemently the implementation of
610, Presidential Order. Those who have perfected the art of exploitation would
never be silent when the injustices are fought, and justice is sought to be
achieved. It is for this reason, SRC apprehended that Telangana would
become a Colony. It has come true, beyond doubt. The solution lies only in
Separate Telangana. Meanwhile, since there is a limited possibility of
implementing 610 and Girglani Commission recommendations, with
retrospective effect since 1975, it is better we
fight, now politically and legally for the revival of Mulki Rules and Telagana Regional
Committee, before the TelanganaState is formed.
Re-constitution of Telangana Regional Committee
In accordance with Gentleme’s Agreement, Regional
Council for Telangana, was to be constituted. The Presidential Order
under 371 (1 ) constituted AP Regional Committee Order, 1958 was issued in February
1, 1958----Word Telangana was omitted, and Council has been changed to
Committee-----
It was given wide powers on subjects like local self Government,
public health, primary and secondary education, regulation of admissions in
Telangana educational institutions, prohibition of liquors, sale of
agricultural lands, Cottage and small scale industries, agriculture, markets,
development and economic planning. All the legislators, and MPs were members of
this committee, the Chairman was given Cabinet Rank.
Section (7) dealing with the powers of the Committee provides: “
The Regional Committee shall have power to consider and pass resolutions
recommending to the state Government any legislative or executive actionwithrespect to
any scheduled matters-------“ Even the superfluous powers of recommendations,
were not respected by the Government.---It must be said to the credit of the
Telangana Regional Committee that it made volumes of reports on Telangana
problems. TRC has used its powers to report, but it has no powers to implement
and administer.
Even though, it was not that effective in its functioning, its
reports, and publications helped to a large extent the general public and the
academics. Similar Boards were established for Vidarbha, Saurashtra, Punjab etc.. The
Andhra leadership, was sore about it, and was abolished under Six-Point
Formula. If not for any thing, the large scale selling of Agricultural lands in
Telangana, in General and around twin cities in particular would have been
under check. According to one report, the Regional Committees functioned only
in AP, and Punjab. The failure of the Committee resulted in the division
of state into Punjab and Haryana, now the abolition of Regional
Committee in AP, also should lead to the creation of Telangana state. Till such
time the separate State is formed, the political leadership of
Telangana, irrespective of political affiliations, should strive for the
re-constitution of Telangana Regional Committee, at the earliest.
దీనికి సబ్‌స్క్రయిబ్ చేయి:
పోస్ట్‌లు (Atom)
-
రామాయణాన్ని చరిత్రగా నమ్మేవాళ్ళు అందలి విశేషాలను కథలు కథలుగా చెపుతుంటారు . రాముడు తన రాజ్యం వదిలి గంగానది దాటి వచ్చి ... -
సెప్టెంబర్ పదిహేడును ఎలా చూడాలి ఆన్న విషయంలో చాలా చర్చే జరిగింది, జరుగుతూనే ఉన్నది. చారిత్రకంగా స్వతంత్ర రాజ్యం గా ఉన్న హైదరాబాద్ భ...
