మంగళవారం, అక్టోబర్ 29, 2013
సోమవారం, అక్టోబర్ 28, 2013
లోక్ సత్తా జయప్రకాశ్ తెలంగాణా మీద ఎన్నిమెలికలు పెడుతున్నాడో చూడండి, నా దృష్టిలో జె పీ అత్యంత ప్రమాదకారి ... thanks to Telangana Talkies
గురువారం, అక్టోబర్ 24, 2013
బుధవారం, అక్టోబర్ 23, 2013
State Division Bill Consists of Which Contents? Ghanta Morning Edition
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
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.
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)
'When a person really desires something, all the universe conspires to help that person to realize his dream. ఇదొక పాపులర్ రచయిత చెప్...
ఉస్మానియా యూనివర్సిటీ గ్లోబల్ అలుమ్ని మీట్ కోసం వెళ్ళినప్పుడు తారసపడ్డ అనేక మంది యూనివర్సిటీ అధ్యాపకుల నియామకం విషయం గురించి ప్రస్తావించార...
"మేం ముందుగా చెప్పినట్టే మా మాటమీద నిలబడి ఉంటాం. మేం గడిచిన అరవై ఏళ్ళుగా మా తల్లి తెలంగాణ కోసం జీవితాలన...