Telangana: Long and Sad Tale of PromisesBy N Venugopal “Mine is a long and sad tale!” Alice thinks the Mouse means its tail, which makes her imagine the poem in its twisted, tail-like shape: “It is a long tail, certainly, ...but why do you call it sad?” And she kept on puzzling about it while the Mouse was speaking… - Lewis Carroll – Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland After a long and anxious wait following the statements of December 9, 2009 announcing the initiation of Telangana State formation process and January 5, 2010 forming a committee to go into the matter, which materialised on February 3, Government of India finally came out with the Terms of Reference (ToR) of Justice B N Srikrishna Committee (officially the Committee for Consultations on the Situation in Andhra Pradesh – CCSAP) on February 12. Even those who welcomed the constitution of the five-member committee as a necessary step in democratic process, felt disappointed with the ToR, since the latter was just against the spirit of Home Minister’s statement of December 9. In fact, Justice Sri Krishna Committee was the ninth such body to study the problem of Telangana, after the States Reorganisation Commission (1955), Kumar Lalit Committee (1969), Justice Vasishta Bhargava Committee (1969), K Jayabharath Reddy Committee (1985), Andhra Pradesh Legislature House Committee (2001), J M Girglani Committee (2001), Pranab Mukherjee Committee (2004), and K Rosaiah Committee (2009) and it was not surprising to find widespread skepticism in Telangana about the outcome this time round. The skepticism proved to be right as the report, submitted after ten months, failed to comprehend the real grievances of Telangana people as well as to suggest viable and just recommendations. In the last five decades, there have been a number of scholarly studies, not to speak of many more journalistic pieces, voicing the apprehensions and aspirations of Telangana people and arguing the case for Telangana as a separate State. Though much has been written about the themes like regional inequality, exploitation, discrimination, regional identity, etc, a systematic study of promises made to Telangana in the last five decades and the way they were dishonoured is yet to be undertaken. This is a modest attempt to list out all the promises that were accorded to Telangana people in general and farmers, students, employees and politicians in particular, with a brief note on what happened to each of those promises. 1. The SRC Report, 1955 The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was the first official body to express its views on Telangana. The SRC, set up by the Union government in 1953, under the chairmanship of Justice Syed Fazl Ali, with H N Kunzru and K M Panikkar as members, submitted its report on September 30, 1955. After a careful enumeration of 1 along with Bidar district. and merging the Telugu-speaking areas with Andhra State – the Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations of the SRC stated: “28.4. It seems to us. however. Even though several leaders from Telangana expressed apprehensions and the SRC report took note of them. the idea of a negotiated settlement came up and the report responded adversely to the idea: “383. if by a two-thirds majority the legislature of the Hyderabad State expresses itself in favour of such unification…” (Report of the States Reorganisation Commission. Warangal (including Khammam). The residuary State of Hyderabad might unite with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961. Karimnagar. that neither guarantees on the lines of the Sri Baug Pact nor constitutional devices such as ‘Scottish devolution’ in the United Kingdom will prove workable or meet the requirements of Telangana during the period of transition. These safeguards may take the form of a guarantee (presumably on the lines of Sri Baug Pact between Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra) of opportunities for employment for Telangana in the public services of the new State at least to the extent of one-third. roughly in the proportion of population. 257) The Union government did not heed to this particular recommendation of the SRC and asked the leaders of the then Hyderabad State and Andhra State to accept merger to form Andhra Pradesh based on a negotiated instrument called Gentlemen’s Agreement. Hyderabad and Medak. 2. Hyderabad – Apart from the districts of Raichur and Gulbarga. and the Munagala enclave in the Nalgonda district belonging to the Krishna district of Andhra. Nalgonda. and an assurance that particular attention will be paid to the development plans of this area. Anything short of supervision by the Central Government over the measures intended to meet the special needs of Telangana will be found 2 . Mahbubnagar. 1955. Adilabad. We have carefully gone into the details of the arrangements which may be made on these lines. Nizamabad. Thus the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh was based on a conditional agreement. We understand that the leaders of the existing Andhra State may be prepared to provide adequate safeguards to protect the interests of Telangana in the event of its integration in Vishalandhra. the Union government acknowledged the contentions of integrationists within Congress and outside. that is to say. in Andhra and Telangana. followed by legal sanction. Gentlemen’s Agreement. conditions of which were never followed later. namely.” “384. the Marathwada districts should also be detached from the Hyderabad State. and a written agreement. 1956 In fact. p. even at the time of the SRC deliberations. trifurcating it on the basis of language but keeping Telugu-speaking areas separate. was seen as a means to assuage the feelings against unification. The residuary State which should continue to be known as Hyderabad should consist of the Telugu-speaking districts of the present State of Hyderabad. The Union government did not take any positive steps to correct the violations either.the arguments in favour of three available options then – keeping Hyderabad State as it was. even though the agreement was accorded statutory position through various measures. that the development of that area would be deemed to be a special charge. Andhra State Assembly on November 29. Andhra Provincial Congress Committee president A Satyanarayana Raju. 3 . 1955 passed a resolution in which it was said. an integrationist and important leader of Hyderabad Provincial Congress Committee (HPCC). Known as Gentlemen’s Agreement. Development expenditure “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…” said point 1 of the agreement. senior ministers N Sanjiva Reddy and G Latchanna as well as Telangana chief minister B Ramakrishna Rao. The issue of ‘Telangana surpluses for Telangana development’ was raised several times both in periodical reports of Telangana Regional Committee and speeches of legislators of opposition as well as ruling party. In another significant development. “this Assembly would…like to assure the people in Telangana. Within four months. and we are not disposed to suggest any such arrangement in regard to Telangana. HPCC president J V Narsinga Rao. More over. consisting of 14 points. one after the other promised a favour or a safeguard to Telangana and each of them was followed more in either violation or distorted implementation. bureaucracy raised a query on what constitutes the “central and general administration” and several such queries were settled not in the spirit of the agreement. autocratic rule unlike Andhra under the British. the document is basically a set of assurances given to Telangana region and the guarantees became necessary in the wake of apprehensions raised by Telangana leaders and people before Justice Fazl Ali Commission. All the points in the agreement. This was necessitated by the fact that Telangana was a revenue-surplus region and Andhra was deficit region at the time of the merger. but against it. the Telangana Regional Committee in 1960 suggested that a separate fund be set up for Telangana and the government rejected the proposal. the Union government asked the leaders of both the States to come to an agreement and there are at least two personal accounts of what happened in Delhi between October 1955 and February 1956.” (Report. Telangana needed additional funds for development due to the fact that the area was under feudal.ineffective. p. and lacked modern development. from the beginning there were obstacles to implement this. senior ministers K V Ranga Reddy and M Chenna Reddy were asked by the Union government to come to Delhi and sign an agreement on February 20. However. a staunch separatist and one of the signatories of the Gentlemen’s Agreement and Swami Ramananda Tirtha (1984). in K V Ranga Reddy (1969). (The full text of the Agreement can be seen in K V Ranga Reddy (1969) and K V Narayana Rao (1973). among many other publications). As a precursor to that agreement. 1956 for the merger of two regions. 106-7) Despite the SRC’s unfavourable comments. and that certain priorities and special protection will be given for the improvement of this area (Telangana Region) such as reservation in services and educational institutions on the basis of population…” Finally Andhra State chief minister B Gopal Reddy. The idea of restricting admissions to locals/natives was not respected and 1969 agitation was a direct consequence of this disregard. in mid-1930s and again between 1948 and 1952.” (point 5) and “Some kind of domicile rules. O. G. However.g. was granted to nobles and chiefs. In fact. each successive measure stood as a proof to the fact that the earlier measures were not implemented.” said point 8 of the agreement. e. 1959. By 1969 this issue became explosive and the government had to appoint Kumar Lalit committee to assess the revenue. orders and notifications in the last five decades. At least two times in history. 36 of 1969. In 1952. This sounds strange but rooted in a particular history of Hyderabad State. No. G. the categorical protection included in Gentlemen’s Agreement was violated in a number of devious ways.” stipulated point 3 of the agreement. The Andhra Pradesh Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules. where educational facilities were to be shared by people from all the regions. except in Hyderabad. whichever is advantageous to Telangana students. about 40 per cent of the total area of the kingdom. Though the government introduced a number of legislations. Thus the continuation of the Mulki Rules or some such protective measure was necessary for safeguarding the interests of Telangana people. But. no new or additional educational facilities were created in Telangana till the early 1970s. or the latter should have admission to the extent of one-third of the total admissions in the entire State. that too after 1969 agitation. Admission to the colleges including technical institutions in the Telangana area should be restricted to the students of Telangana. Land “Sales of agricultural lands in Telangana area to be controlled by the Regional Council. Employment “Future recruitment to services will be on the basis of population from both regions. there were allegations of violation of the Mulki Rules and there were agitations by students and employees. the agitation led to police firing and seven students were killed then. The Asaf Jahi rulers have introduced jagirdari system where a lot of land. in operation since 1919. residence for 12 years should be provided in order to secure the prescribed proportion to recruitment of services for Telangana area” (point 7) were specific safeguards with regard to the rightful share of Telangana in public employment. 610 of 1985 are some of the consequent actions but none of them was fully and properly implemented. expenditure and surpluses in Telangana. when the erstwhile Nizam’s government brought in the law to protect the employment opportunities of local people vis-à-vis non-locals. this was in continuation of the Mulki Rules protecting the interests of locals in employment. More over. Education “The existing educational facilities in Telangana should be secured to the students of Telangana and further improved. the rulers 4 .O No.Both a scholarly study on Telangana Regional Committee (K V Narayana Rao 1972) as well as important speeches in Andhra Pradesh legislature (Akiri Media Research Publishing Pvt Ltd 2005) clearly show that the issue was raised a number of times on various fora. it was proposed to have a monitoring agency to look after the sales and the authority was to be given to Telangana Regional Council.700 sq miles of the state. after four years. it is a different matter that the author. Out of 82. Regional Council “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. since the small farmers thought it better to sell off their land without irrigation and remunerative agriculture. much of the land remained in the hands of either the government or absentee landlords. there were already some apprehensions regarding the land transactions in Telangana: “They (Rayalaseema landlords and people from Krishna and Guntur districts) may buy all the lands from the poor Telangana peasants. industrial development within the general plan and recruitment to services in so far as they relate to Telangana area…” (Point 11) The provisions regarding the Regional Council were implemented half-heartedly and finally the committee thus formed was mutilated beyond the original idea. concludes that the TRC functioned well!) 5 . p. even after meticulously listing each and every violation of the agreement as well brushing aside and dismissal of the reports. 1973.” (cited in K V Narayana Rao.” (Point 9) “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. Beginning from the nomenclature (changing its name from the proposed Telangana Regional Council to Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee). 1954. Even as the tenancy reforms brought in 1951 provided some of this taken over land to the existing tenants. while the process of according statutory power to this item. when sarf-e-khas was taken over by the government in February followed by jagir abolition in August. the relevant provisions were removed from the proposed bill. but not even 10 per cent of them were accepted by the government). Finally. (Of course. to identifying its duties and functions (the Union government while tabling the relevant safeguards was so vague that it “propose to invite the attention of the chief minister of Andhra to this particular understanding and to express the hope it would be implemented”) and giving due respect to its reports (a little over 100 reports on various lapses and violations were submitted by the Regional Committee between 1958 and 1969. A detailed study of the functioning of the regional committee is available in K V Narayana Rao (1972). However. These huge tracts of land were prone to be encroached or bought legally. There are people in Andhra who can now buy away all the lands which might be irrigated if projects like Nandikonda and Ramapadasagar materialise.have given unto themselves 10 per cent of the land in the kingdom for private expenditure (sarf-e-khas) of the king’s family. as per the Gentlemen’s Agreement. 291). The poor Telangana peasant might be enamoured of the money he gets now but might not realise the loss he might sustain (in future) by selling his lands to the Andhra landlords now. Government of India told Government of Andhra Pradesh that it would be difficult to enact such legislation. Given these apprehensions.519 sq miles was under various kinds of jagirs till 1949. which was passed in 1969. As Golconda Patrika noted on July 25. irrigation and other projects. 29. All Party Meeting. the Deputy Chief Minister will be from Telangana and vice versa. The same was tabled in Parliament on August 10. retrenchment of surplus personnel in the new State and distribution of expenditure between Telangana and Andhra regions. consisting of legislators including ministers from the region. 1958. 1958 have all taken the Gentlemen’s Agreement into consideration and included the relevant items. 3. position of Urdu. 1969 Telangana people as well as the Regional Committees in the three successive legislatures anxiously waited for the implementation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement and the Safeguards in proper perspective and tried to complain whenever they got a chance to expose the lapses and violations. In case of difference of opinion. The order specifically said “the advice tendered by the Regional Committee will normally be accepted by the Government and the State Legislature. Even when there was an attempt on the part of the government to implement them. This 10-point note talked about setting up a regional standing committee. 4. 1956 and formed the basis for the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee Order. the same gentlemen were asked to prepare a note on safeguards proposed for the Telangana Area and this note was prepared in August 1956. 1956. reference will be made to the Governor whose decision will be final and binding.” However. Planning and Development. Two out of the following portfolios will be assigned to Ministers from Telangana: a. with regard to the name of the integrated State and the location of High Court.” said point 13 of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. d. and the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee Order. 371. the first day of the existence of Andhra Pradesh itself. Later in some instances this agreement was followed but the spirit of the agreement – protection of Telangana interests – was not respected even by those ministers from Telangana. Commerce and Industry. The then chief minister N Sanjiva Reddy was famous for commenting that deputy chief minister post is like the sixth finger and doing away with that. Two other points. Revenue. Home. 1956 in the form of Art. Safeguards to Telangana. b. neither the advices of the Regional Committee were accepted normally nor the Governor intervened to resolve the issue. even though he himself was a deputy chief minister in the earlier Andhra state government. After witnessing this for more than twelve years. not included in the agreement. e. said point 12 and “If the Chief Minister is from Andhra. the notifications.Political power “The Cabinet will consist of members in proportion of 60:40 per cent for Andhra and Telangana respectively…”. provisions and orders remained on paper and did not really translate into practice. unemployed youth as well as the members of the Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’ (TNGOs) Union began their struggle for protecting the 6 . This particular piece of agreement was violated on November 1. 1956 Subsequent to the Gentlemen’s Agreement. domicile rules. The State Reorganisation Act. 1956. Finance. mandatory reference of legislation relating to specified matters (nine areas were listed). were also discussed but due to disagreement. the Seventh amendment to the Constitution of India. c. no other promise of the All Party agreement was fulfilled. 36. 1959.000. 1969 Following the All Party agreement the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G. 36 but also questioned the validity 7 . The posts so rendered vacant will be filled by qualified candidates possessing domicile qualifications and in cases where such candidates are not available the posts shall be left unfilled till qualified domicile candidates become available. G. However. One of the major developments was a batch of litigations before the High Court and a single judge in January. ministers and opposition representatives arrived at an agreement. 1969 all non-domicile persons appointed on or after November 1. No. In fact. lapses have arisen in the implementation of the policy. “The Telangana surpluses so determined will be fully utilised for development of Telangana region during the next five years. on January 21. by that time more complicated related developments were taking place and the mere issuance of the order would not have served any purpose. 36. Action on the above lines will be taken immediately. At that time it was estimated that the number of non-domicile employees would be about 22. All non-domicile employees so relieved shall be provided employment in the Andhra region without break in service and by creating supernumerary posts.O.” The All Party Meeting also suggested an elaborate method to determine the Telangana surpluses and requested the Comptroller and Auditor General to depute a senior officer of the rank of an Accountant General to ascertain the Telangana surpluses and give his finding before February 28. 5. if necessary. 1969. the government of Andhra Pradesh called for an All Party Meeting on January 19. Any Telangana surpluses accruing in future will be worked out at the end of each financial year and due provision will be made for its utilisation in the Telangana region in succeeding year…. youth and employees. except issuing an order with regard to non-domicile employees and appointment of an officer of CAG to ascertain the Telangana surpluses. No.safeguards in January 1969 and within three weeks it became a wide-spread movement all over Telangana districts involving students. Even the two honoured promises have ultimately become irrelevant. In such a tense situation. O. 1969 to seek remedial measures. 1956 to certain categories of posts reserved for domiciles of Telangana under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules. The meeting attended by 45 legislators including chief minister. 1969. 1959 for domiciles of Telangana region will be immediately relieved from service. culminating into a movement demanding division of the State. by promotion or by transfer to posts reserved under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules. The order was to relieve before February 28. The meeting accepted that “though it has been the settled policy of the Andhra Pradesh Government to implement faithfully the terms of the Gentlemen’s Agreement.O. who have been appointed either directly.” The agreement at the meeting included a provision: “All non-domicile persons. No. a division bench in February and a majority in full bench in March in their judgments not only set aside some sections of the AP Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules and G.” said the agreement. 1968.07 crore were deducted from the initial net surplus. 1956 and March 31.92 crore. 38. Eight-Point Formula. 13. The net surplus on Revenue Account was estimated by Lalit to be Rs. O. 1969 When Telangana region was burning with an unprecedented popular movement. This litigation reached Supreme Court also and a division bench struck down the order. Though the government went in for appeal in Supreme Court and the apex court ultimately upheld the Mulki Rules in October 1972. the G. famous as Eight-Point Formula. there has been a debate on Telangana surpluses. providing appropriate constitutional safeguards in the matter of public employment in favor of people belonging to the Telangana region and periodic review of the problems of the Telangana region. The Prime Minister ended the statement with assuring “the people of Telangana as well as those of other parts of Andhra Pradesh that their genuine 8 . The TRC raised this issue several times between 1958 and 1968 and finally the government had to take measures to calculate this during the heat of 1969 agitation. with educational institutions and government offices remained closed for months. meaning the unspent amount of Telangana and half the overspent amount of Andhra area. Lalit reported that the surpluses on Revenue Account as far as the state excise duties were concerned amounted to about Rs. 36 of 1969 was not implemented and by that time it became superfluous. However. When the excess expenditure on Capital Account (including Loans and Advances) of Rs. Kumar Lalit Committee on Telangana surpluses. 1969 Ever since the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Prime Minister’s statement. 13. No.59 crore.66 crore and on corporations of Rs. 102 crore in the Telangana region. 107. Thus according to the Regional Committee the total Telangana surpluses would go up to Rs. or to put it simply the unspent rightful share of Telangana. 1969 wherein she announced the appointment of a ‘high-powered committee to examine varying estimates made of Telangana surpluses’ and Lalit Committee’s report was consigned to ignominy.13 crore.62 crore and Telangana share in the erstwhile Hyderabad government securities to the extent of Rs.20 crore. as well as Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act. Kumar Lalit was appointed to determine the Telangana surpluses between November 1. An officer of CAG. implementing accelerated development programmes in Telangana. 1957 as unconstitutional on March 28. 7. The statement made a number of promises regarding determining the Telangana surpluses. the final figure of net surplus arrived at by Lalit was Rs. 1969. 63. was made with an intention to “finding urgent and positive solutions which will further the objective of providing immediate as well as long term answers to the needs of people in the Telangana region… The overall aim is to ensure that the pace of development and the expansion of employment opportunities in Telangana is accelerated”. this calculation was scrutinised by the Regional Committee in detail and the committee thought that the tentative figure of Telangana surpluses should also include half of the revenue deficit of the Andhra region to the extent of Rs 29. 6. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made a statement in the Lok Sabha on April 11. Even as the differences on the quantum of Telangana surpluses arose. 12.of the Mulki Rules. 1956 and March 31. the committee concluded that Telangana was deprived to that extent of fair share and the difference was added to the revenue surplus of the year to determine the amount which should have been reserved for the development of Telangana with accordance with the Gentlemen’s Agreement. it noted that “the object. the Prime Minister’s statement was translated into a single step of constituting a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Vasishta Bhargava with three other members. It also decided that the fair share of Telangana in the development expenditure of the State should be one third. etc. The committee expressed the hope that apart from complying with the terms of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. refusing public meetings. in that region may rise so as to enable the residents of Telangana to come up to the standards attained in the Andhra region. Committee on Telangana Surpluses. If the amount spent on the development in Telangana exceeded its fair share. If. the government account puts the death toll at 57 in 96 incidents of police firing. While independent sources claim that 370 students and youth were killed in police firing all over Telangana during January 20 and August 7. despite the tall promises of continuous and sympathetic attention. 9. Imposition of Section 144 prohibiting the assembly of more than four persons. the committee worked out the unspent Telangana surpluses to be Rs. namely ensuring that the backward Telangana region received special treatment in order that the standards of education. 1969 the government of India constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Vasishta Bhargava to ascertain Telangana surpluses between November 1. 1968. nobody knows what happened later and within three years another formula removed Telangana Regional Committee as well as the idea of keeping separate accounts for Telangana making it impossible to determine the Telangana surpluses. Despite the Government of India’s advice to the Government of AP to accept the recommendations of Bhargava Committee. the committee held that this excess was utilised out of the revenue surpluses of Telangana. the government indulged in ruthless repression to crush the questions and aspirations of Telangana people on the other. The committee determined the revenue surpluses of Telangana – the difference between revenue income and revenue expenditure. Though Bhargava Committee arrived at a different figure than that of Lalit. 1969. and 9 . on April 22. 1969 As a follow-up of the Eight-Point Formula. on the other hand.problems will receive the continuous and sympathetic attention of the central government”. the State government would keep in view the object of that agreement and take appropriate measures in future to ensure that Telangana is allocated adequate funds to speed up its development so as to enable it to make up the deficiency. Use of force to crush the movement Acknowledging the injustice meted out to Telangana and proclaiming democratic solutions to the problem from the high offices on one hand. living. However..34 crore for the period from 1956–57 to 1967-68. the amount spent on Telangana in any year fell short of its fair share. 28. has not yet been achieved”. Ultimately. 8. lathi charge and firing tear gas shells on agitators. Then in March 1971 mid-term elections to Lok Sabha were held and Telangana elected 10 TPS candidates out of 14 seats with a combined vote share of 47. However. Victory in this urban constituency was followed by much more favourable result in a rural constituency of Siddipet in November 1970 when TPS nominee received 62. a Telangana person. a five-member bench of Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 3 October 1972 and upheld the validity of the Mulki Rules. immediately after this verdict. title and the Preamble to it. and two separate States should be created” (Myron Weiner. 10 . there was no longer any reason to keep the State intact. Further.5 per cent of polled votes while Congress got 27. However. Thousands of people were arrested and tortured and hundreds of cases were booked against them. p.curfews have become the order of the day. 1970-71 That the fire in Telangana people was not suppressed became visible in the byelections to legislature in 1970 as well as mid-term polls for Lok Sabha in 1971.” giving local candidates “preference to specified extent in the matter of direct recruitment”. even that appointment did not last long with the imposition of President Rule in January 1973. The short-lived government under P V Narasimha Rao also did not initiate any steps to implement any of the promises given to Telangana. but the underlying fire could not be extinguished. substituting new article 371 for the old also shows that it was intended to give special consideration to the Telangana region. “The Andhra political leadership argued that if the Mulki Rules were enforced and the Andhras denied employment in the state services in the capital city.9 per cent only. but also. the government had to fell down. Electoral victories of Telangana Praja Samiti. The only apparent pro-Telangana overture was the replacement of the chief minister K Brahmananda Reddy with P V Narasimha Rao. “Accelerated development of the backward areas”. 1956. in September 1971. the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act. that too in an atmosphere of resounding victory of Indira Gandhi’s Congress (R). 1972 In the meanwhile. The movements were so intense that not only the judgment could not be enforced. Telangana Praja Samiti candidate won Khairatabad assembly seat securing 65. 1973 As an attempt to pacify both Jai Andhra and Jai Telangana movements of 1972-73. enabling adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of admission to educational institutions and establishment of a new Central University of Hyderabad to augment the existing educational facilities. defeating his Congress rival who got 23 per cent. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi negotiated with the leaders of both the regions and made them issue a statement called Six-Point Formula. 249) and thus began Jai Andhra movement and a second phase Jai Telangana movement. there were attempts to nullify it in the form of a political agitation. 11. point to that conclusion (validity of continuing Mulki Rules). 10.5 per cent. Six-Point Formula. “The whole history of the legislation. The repressive measures coupled with co-opting the leaders of the movement as well as internal bickering among the leaders resulted in apparent termination of the movement. the TPS merged with Congress and thus the mandate of Telangana people in favour of separate State was smashed by Congress. within six months.9 per cent votes. In June 1970. its object.” said the judgment. Supreme Court Judgment. 12. However. 1988. Owing to a variety of causes.constitution of a high-power administrative tribunal to deal with the grievances of services. On the September 21. “When the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956. known as the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order. 1975. 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 Telangana area. 14.” While the sixth point was a conditional derivative of the earlier five. it was immediately implemented even without thinking about the implementation of the previous ones. 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. and provided reservation in the matter of direct recruitment. 371 (special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh). The provisions of clause (1) of Article 371 of the Constitution were intended to give effect to certain features of these safeguards. clearly mentioned why such legislation was needed. The Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act. Presidential Order. Out of the five only two – setting up a Central University and amendment to the Constitution – were implemented nominally and the other three beg for realisation even now. 1973 The statement of objects and reasons of the Constitution (Thirty-Second) Amendment Act. But in 1969. 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. provided the President an opportunity to make special orders. 1975 In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 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. 1957. 13. 371-D of the Constitution. Constitutional amendment. Thus the Mulki Rules and Telangana Regional Committee were done away with. 1973. employment and career prospects in public services…” This amendment in the form of inclusion of clause D in Art. suitable amendment to the Constitution to avoid litigation and consequent uncertainty were the first five points in the formula and the sixth point was “the above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary. 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 the matter of education. The Presidential Order defined local areas and divided the state into 6 zones for the purpose of deciding local cadres. Measures were devised from time to time to resolve the problems. 11 . even before the other promises were executed. was enacted inter alia to provide for employment opportunities for residents of Telangana area. 1973. the President issued an order with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. quite a few non-gazetted posts were elevated and departments were divided to increase HoDs from 51 to 204. Similarly.10. the Presidential Order was misinterpreted. Consisting of three senior IAS officers under the chairmanship of K Jayabharath Reddy.However.O. the BJP in its state executive meeting at Kakinada in 1997 before the election passed a resolution supporting the creation of Telangana State and the same was incorporated in its manifesto of 1998 Lok Sabha elections. G. from the beginning. if not dubious. The committee also recommended immediate repatriation of the non-local employees.O. 16. No. The order was effectively used against Telangana people if they belong to one zone and employed in the other zone. while the order reserved a certain share for locals. remains on paper and subsequently there are at least two dozen other orders. No. BJP’s Kakinada Resolution.1986 by creating supernumerary posts wherever necessary”.’ However. Further. even after 25 years the G. wherever it was put into practice. and the promise of Telangana State was put on 12 . A little earlier. 1985 Based on the recommendations of both the committees as well as a representation from the Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’ Union. it was implemented as if it reserved the remaining share for non-locals.3.1975 to zones V and VI in violation of zonalisation of local cadres under the Six-Point Formula will be repatriated to their respective zones by 31. in violation of the Presidential Order. the BJP joined hands with the Telugu Desam Party in 1999 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.962 non-local employees were appointed between 1975 and 1985. by diluting the eligibility to be called a local. towards redressing the grievances of Telangana people. 1998 While the response of the two political parties that ruled the state was ambiguous. While the order was necessitated by the grievance of Telangana people about not getting their rightful share in employment. the government brought in G. The government appointed one-man commission of another retired bureaucrat V Sundaresan “to further examine the alleged violations in the implementation of the Six-Point Formula and to suggest corrective steps taking into consideration the report of the Officers’ Committee”. Officers’ Committee. categorically stated. 15. “the employees allotted after 18. Making use of exemptions provided in the Presidential Order for gazetted positions and offices of heads of departments. 1985 With the realisation of non-implementation or misinterpreted execution of the Presidential Order there was a lot of agitation among the employees and unemployed in Telangana and as a response N T Rama Rao government in 1984 appointed a committee to look into the anomalies. the definition of local removed the spirit of the Mulki Rules. the order divided the State into six zones with Telangana getting divided into two zones. which among other measures. rules and notifications and half a dozen official and nonofficial committees but actual implementation has not taken place. However. 17. (the other two being K Umapati and C R Kamalanathan) the committee found that 58. It gave an election slogan of ‘one vote two states. 610 on 30 December 1985.O. the Bharatiya Janata Party raised their hopes in creating three new states. 610. Thus the Presidential Order which was introduced to allay the fears of Telangana was essentially used to further the discrimination against them and it only exacerbated the apprehensions of Telangana people. 610. Girglani Commission. another House Committee was formed under the chairmanship of N Uttam Kumar Reddy in 2006 and the committee could not function.O. More over. AP Legislature House Committee Based on a calling attention debate in AP legislative assembly on December 29. contraventions and violations. 2001. The commission had identified seven sources of these violations and suggested 35 types of remedies and 3 major recommendations. identification of local or non-local was based on self-declaration done during 2001 Employees Census. the NDA Government could have carved out Telangana as a separate state along with Uttarakhand. The report has pointed out quite a lot of instances where the Presidential Order was ignored. Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed a one-man Commission with J M Girglani. submitted its interim report. The committee submitted its interim report on October 6. 610. 2004. we could not act in this matter. it should be remembered that this official commission could not get all the required information from various departments and content itself with information from 52 out of 204 departments. However. “During its six-year term in office (1998-2004). 2001 on the implementation of G. Then. However. and the report was tabled in AP legislature on March 17.O. 2003.” admitted L K Advani in September 2008. 13 . bypassed or circumvented through improper application of some provisions. 610 in State Legislature. due to resignations of some of its members. the BJP declared that it could not take up Telangana issue due to its dependence on the TDP for continuing in power. except holding a couple of meetings. rather than on the entry in personal service register. It was only in the past-2004 scenario. based on the information from 10 departments and state level employees associations. This “immediate effect” has not seen the light of the day and the committee submitted its second report on November 14. Girglani arrived at a number of findings and made wide-ranging recommendations. setting up another House Committee was necessitated since the legislators’ term came to an end in 2004. a House Committee was constituted with R Prakash Reddy as chairman and 14 legislators as members and 5 legislators as special invitees. No. O. No. Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. the BJP never raised the issue of Telangana. Before going into the recommendations of the Girglani Commission. between 1975 and 2001. Again it recommended the same immediate repatriation but no action was taken. 19. on June 25. 18. The commission listed 18 varieties of 126 instances of deviations.backburner. The committee’s recommendations include repatriation of the non-locals who were appointed in the posts earmarked for the locals against the Six Point Formula with immediate effect. a retired IAS officer. skirted. the committee. Even though the BJP-led NDA ruled the country between 1998 and 2004. Again in the new legislature. No. with whatever little information made available to him. 2001 Following a debate on the implementation of G. 2003. Critics contend that it was not simple lethargy on the part of the nonresponsive departments. The committee was given three months time. but the heads of the concerned departments did not want to divulge the information on the implementation of G. We could not do so because of our tie-up with the TDP during the NDA rule. Since the TDP was then opposed to the formation of Telangana. 2001 and a three-volume 716 page final report on September 30. the Congress Legislators Forum for Telangana made representations to Sonia Gandhi and several Congress leaders from Telangana were vociferous on creation of a separate State. No. The Congress Working Committee considered this issue in proper perspective and resolved that ‘while respecting the report of the first States’ Reorganisation Commission. 2004 Not only making a promise in election manifesto. 399 was issued in 2007. However. mala fides. The GoM in turn appointed a committee of bureaucrats to study the report and identify the key elements.” 21. the Congress Party notes that there are many valid reasons for formation of separate States in Vidarbha and Telangana. 116.O. 20. lack of post-factor monitoring system and absence of a nodal agency to guide and control the implementation of the Presidential Order. G. No. Having been outside power for two terms. the reorginisation of existing States raises a large number of issues.O. Also. However. spoke in a diametrically opposite language than the Presidential Order. On the whole.The commission recommended that there should be immediate and effective action to put an end to the various deviations so that in the future. 2004 The popular demand in Telangana for statehood had come handy for the Congress in its bid to oust the TDP from power in 2004 elections. Continuing that mood. The Commission has spelt out the framework of safeguards and suggested immediate and impact measures as well as long-term measures. Even earlier. No. strong deterrent action should be instituted against officials if there was any indication of gross lapse.1975. The Commission has suggested that the fundamental safeguard for the Presidential Order would be to categorically declare through a government order the sanctity and immutability of local character of a post or category of posts as on 18. 14 . this latest G. The government tabled the report in Assembly on February 16. Based on the report of this officers’ committee G. caught in this web of red tape and procrastination the major purpose of protecting the interests of locals in employment was lost. bias. the Congress election manifesto 2004 said: “The Congress Party recognises the growing emotions and aspirations of the people of Telangana Region. it was repealed through G. went against the spirit of the Presidential Order. Congress Election Manifesto. The Commission also noted that a very important cause for the violations of Six Point Formula and Presidential Order has been the absence of any mechanism for either ongoing control or monitoring system or inspections. the Congress saw to it that its promise entered the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme.O. the Presidential Order would not be subverted either deliberately or through unpardonable ignorance. The Congress Party feels that the whole matter could be best addressed by another States Reorganisation Commission to look into all the issues involved. favouritism or recalcitrant persistence in deviations on their part. Then the second House Committee was constituted and when it could not function due to resignations of some members.O. announced in May 2004.10. 2005 and appointed a seven-member Group of Ministers to examine the report. it entered into an electoral tie-up with the Telangana Rashtra Samiti. 72 was issued and when it was pointed out that the G. UPA’s Common Minimum Programme.O. the Congress was willing to do anything for regaining power at that time and seeing the mood of the people in Telangana. P. “the Government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana State at an appropriate time after due consultations. The committee was asked to ascertain the views of all political parties with regard to Telangana State formation. 2008 The year 2008 saw a new political formation in Andhra Pradesh and many people expected that the new party under the leadership of a charismatic matinee idol Chiranjeevi. said. several intellectuals who joined his party at that time described it as a pro-dalit-bahujan Telangana. except setting up Pranab Mukherjee committee. the PRP changed its stand officially on December 16. In fact. Quite naturally Telangana people sought a categorical assurance from the Praja Rajyam Party for their demand of statehood. Though he did not define it in as many words. the Telugu Desam Party was a party of Telugu national unity and it never entertained any sentiments of deprivation of Telangana or division of State. by saying the Telangana movement was a movement for selfrespect. 2004. but supported the Telangana cause at the first public meeting on August 26. 2009 and said it would support the status quo.though in a convoluted way. Similarly. 2004 President A. The committee collected the opinions of some political parties but the whole exercise ended at that. sent their opinions to the committee and till now nobody knows what happened to the committee’s report. political stances and implementation. TDP’s Telangana Resolution. 22. the 15 . would destabilize the monopoly of both the entrenched parties and bring in a fresh air in promises. The CMP said: “The UPA government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana State at an appropriate time after due consultation and consensus.J. Even on the floor of the legislature. the current phase of Telangana movement began when it was in power between 1994 and 2004 and the party bosses did not even allow the echoes of movement to reverberate in their party.” While this statement made the consideration of the demand for the formation of Telangana state. Chiranjeevi avoided the question at the maiden press conference on August 18. no attempt in favour of consultations on the part of the government was done. even after the President’s promise to have consultations. 23. conditional on “due consultation and consensus” no action was initiated to do so. President’s Address. With regard to this statement also. Pranab Mukherjee Committee. More than two dozen political parties. 2004 Perhaps as a consequence of the CMP’s cautious (dubious?) wording of “consultation and consensus”. though some of them do not have anything to do with Telangana or Andhra Pradesh. 2008 Ever since it was formed. 25. 24.” This statement preceded a detailed comment on regional imbalances and the need to redress. during the pre-election road show. PRP’s Samajika Telangana. 2008. he said his party favoured a saamaajika (social) Telangana. However. the UPA had constituted a three-member committee under the chairmanship of Pranab Mukherjee in November 2004. Abdul Kalam in his address to Joint Session of the Indian Parliament on June 7. Four of them were from Telangana. the Congress 16 . The politbureau discussed the report for four days and consequently the TDP officially made a resolution. 26.speaker belonging to the TDP did not allow the members to use the word Telangana. One doesn’t know what the committee had done. CPI and BJP . The Congress reiterated no-objection to Telangana stand and said: “in fact. as the 2009 election was approaching. identifying the economic issues. While the ToR covered everything under the sun. the committee was not given any specific time frame. Sonia Gandhi said that the Congress does not have objection to announce Telangana. Even in the post-election scenario. The resolution unambiguously supported the formation of Telangana as a separate State. the status of Hyderabad metropolitan area taking into consideration the migrant population. Within hours the State government constituted a joint committee of legislators under the chairmanship of finance minister K Rosaiah. the concerns of the migrant population in the rest of Telangana (excluding Hyderabad). working out the modalities for sharing river waters vis-à-vis the existing situation.refused to nominate their representatives to the committee and the committee was constituted by seven legislators from Congress and one from MIM. the Congress Party as well as the TDP and its electoral allies promised Telangana State. Rosaiah Committee. provided some critical issues were resolved. the TDP set up a brainstorming ‘core committee’ consisting of leaders from three regions (Telangana. 2009 At a public meeting in March 2009. the TDP supremo N Chadrababu Naidu challenged the Congress for supporting the State division and tying up with the TRS. 2009 During the 2009 elections. examining the issues pertaining to existing demands for separate States by other regions of the State. part of Election campaign. at the same time. except that the committee’s name was used in the election speeches. Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema) to study and make a decision on Telangana. The ToR included examining the concerns of minorities in the proposed Telangana set up. All the opposition parties . and working out a strategy for the overall and harmonious development of all regions in the event of formation of Telangana State and infrastructure and service facilities at State capital — both State and central governments — relocation and consequential issues. three from Andhra and one from Rayalaseema. However. the issues relating to Maoist and terrorist activities in the context of proposed Telangana set up. The party president announced the resolution in October 2008 paving the way for an electoral understanding with the TRS. CPM. the TDP had given its letter against the State division to Pranab Mukherjee committee. He was on record saying that the 2004 election was a referendum between the forces that wanted to divide the State and those that maintain unity.TRS.” At the time of 2004 elections. 27. the facts relating to employment and exploitation of resources etc. Election Manifestos of major parties. However. The committee examined the issue for five months and finally gave its report to the politbureau in favour of Telangana. and in stead suggested them to use “backward area. Congress Party basically does not have any objection for the formation of a separate State of Telangana. the CM on record denied having any such information) and the third one did not take place even after three months. further action will be taken immediately. 17 . All Party Meeting. immediately after taking over power. assigned to Scheduled Castes by persons from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema – led to anxiety among Telangana people and by November there were sporadic agitations all over Telangana. The fast was scheduled to begin on November 29 and he was obstructed and arrested a few hours before. the second one was not necessary as per the Constitution.Party feels that it has to take a specific path in this regard…. Out of these three promises. when the Union Home Minister. president of Telangana Rashtra Samiti announced that he would sit on a fastunto-death demanding resolution of these problems as well as formation of Telangana State. asking the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh to move a necessary resolution in State legislature and asking the State government to withdraw cases on students and agitators booked between November 29 and December 9. K Chandrasekhara Rao. Already the party has conveyed its opinion to Pranab Mukherjee committee.” 28.after the (Rosaiah) committee submits its report.” The Praja Rajyam Party’s election manifesto said: “The Praja Rajyam Party is going ahead with the aim of building up a Social Telangana. 2009 Two independent developments in September and October 2009 . with a latest resolution in favour of Telangana in its hand. the Praja Rajyam Party will take all the necessary legislative actions for creating separate Telangana. the first one is in suspended animation. announced that “the process of Telangana State formation is being initiated” on December 9. the Telugu Desam Party will take all the necessary political and legal measures for creation of Telangana State. On December 7. The Telugu Desam Party. Respecting the popular will. In this context. respecting the sentiments of Telangana people. promised in its manifesto: “After a detailed discussion in the Party Politbureau on the report submitted by the core committee appointed by the party on the issue of separate Telangana State formation.” However.the Supreme Court’s observation in favour of Hyderabad being “free zone” and exposure of the encroachment of lands. He continued his fast in jail and later in hospital. the party announced its favourable decision for the formation of separate Telangana. (of course. when his health condition was grave. Telangana people thought the Congress deceived them by making similar promises and reneging in 2004 and this feeling was translated as an electoral alliance between the TRS and the TDP. divided vertically and again the promise given to Telangana was dishonored. 2009 In his statement on December 9. Home Minister’s Statement. around Hyderabad. 2009 Union Home Minister P Chidambaram made three promises: initiating the process of formation of Telangana State. 2009. 29. the government invited all the political parties in the State to find out a solution. The All Party Meeting resolved that they do not have any objection if a bill was introduced in Parliament to form Telangana State. all these parties which accepted that. However. Swami Ramananda (1984): Hyderabad Swatantrya Poratam – Anubhavalu. Jnapakalu (Hyderabad: Prabhata Prachurana Samiti) 18 . What is the guarantee that a new promise would be kept and how long should we wait for another deception after accepting another promise. Research and Communication) Simhadri.Indeed this long tail has many more fatiguing twists than elaborated here. Dagmar and Hugh. K V (1969): Sweeya Charitra (Hyderabad: Sweeya Charitra Trust Committee) Rao. (Hyderabad: L R Educational Trust) Narayana Rao. asks any ordinary person from Telangana now. Hanumantha Rao V.O. with every turn being a blind curve or ending in a sad note. A (2006): Funeral of 610 G. K V (1973): The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh (Bombay: Popular Prakashan) Ranga Reddy.) (1997): Telangana – Dimensions of Underdevelopment (Hyderabad: Centre for Telangana Studies) Tirtha. C H (2007): Pranteeya Asamanatalu – Pratyeka Telangana (Hyderabad: Hyderabad Book Trust) Jayashankar. M (2008): Telangana Mucchata (Hyderabad: Ramaiah Vidyapeetham) Lokender Reddy.) (2009): Telangana – The State of Affairs (Hyderabad: AdEd Value Ventures) Bernstorff. P L (ed. Gray (1998): The Kingmakers – Politicians and Politics in Andhra Pradesh (New Delhi: Har Anand) Government of India (1955): Report of the States Reorganisation Commission (Delhi) Government of India (1969): Report of the Committee on Telangana Surpluses (Delhi) Hanumantha Rao. Bibliography: Bharath Bhushan. S and Vishweshwer Rao. Venugopal N (ed. R S. A M (1958): Economic and Social Effects of Jagirdari Abolition and Land Reforms (Hyderabad: Osmania University) Kodandaram. Kothapalli (2004): Telangana Rashtram – Oka Demand (Godavari Khani: Mallepalli Rajam Memorial Trust) Khusro. K V (1972): Telangana – A Study in the Regional Committees in India (Calcutta: The Minerva Associates) Narayana Rao.) (2007): Fifty Years of Andhra Pradesh 1956-2006 (Hyderabad: Centre for Documentation. M and Venugopal N (ed. That’s why there is a mass upsurge in Telangana right now and the people say they do not believe in any other new twist in the tale and seek nothing short of creation of a State. Venugopal. B P R (2002): The Telengana Surpluses – A Case Study (Hyderabad: CESS) Weiner. N (2004): Telangana Nunchi Telangana Daaka (Hyderabad: Devulapalli Publications) Venugopal. Myron (1988): Sons of the Soil – Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India (Delhi: Oxford University Press) 19 . N (2010): Lechinilichina Telangana (Hyderabad: Swechasahiti) Vithal.