Telangana separate state demand is completely politically motivated. The true age of Telangana movement is 4 years and not 60 years as the separatists claim.

If we look with different perspective and believe, we will notice that even the creator of the universe God is also acted or acting partial. So if we look 1st SRC (State Reorganization Committee) Report it raises our eyebrows and the following questions.

Why the formation of states was recommended based on language and ethnicity while India has 1654 languages?
.
While recommending linguistic states why they ignored some languages like Gujarati, Panjabi, Haryanvi and Urdu?

While uniting same language speaking areas into one state why they didn’t tried to unite Hindi speaking areas?

Why they were reluctant to unite Telugu speaking areas? Why they didn’t express any concern about merging Marathi speaking areas into Bombay State and Kannada speaking areas into Mysore State? Why they expressed that the Andhra people will going to dominate the Telangana people only in case of merging Telugu speaking areas?

The 1st SRC is failed to envision the upcoming divisions and problems, otherwise it could have recommended the Article 3’s abolition. As per 1st SRC the State of Hyderabad was agreed to bifurcate itself into 3 parts Marathi speaking areas into Bombay state, Kannada speaking areas into Mysore state and Telugu speaking areas into Andhra Pradesh state. For some unknown political reasons the part of Telugu speaking area of Hyderabad state wanted some special benefits in order to merge with Andhra State.It looks like that the Congress Party was afraid to lose its power to Communist parties.

Both states came up with a 1956 Gentlemen's agreement and became as Andhra Pradesh state. Is this agreement is valid? Does it have any constitutional validity? Isn’t it against earlier agreement Sribagh Pact between Costal Andhra & Rayalseema regions of Andhra State? After the formation of Andhra Pradesh state, there should be 3 regions not two regions. And the conditions in gentlemen’s agreement “The cabinet will consist of members in proportion of 60:40 percent for Andhra and Telangana respectively, out of 40% of Telangana ministers, one will be a Muslim from Telangana. If the Chief Minister is from one region the other region should be given Deputy Chief Minister” and “Distribution of expenditure between Telangana and Andhra Regions” are unjustified, how can they leave Rayalseema region from the agreement?

“Domicile Rules: Telangana is regarded as a unit as far as recruitment to subordinate services is concerned; posts borne on the cadre of these services may be reserved for being filled up by persons who satisfy the domicile conditions as prescribed under the existing Hyderabad Mulki Rules. (12 years of Stay in Telangana area)” Isn’t it against Indian Constitution? Anywhere in India if any one resides in a place for more than 5 years, that person will be treated as local to that place. Isn’t the Telangana part of India? Why the person has to stay for 12 years to become as local? It looks like an eye wash agreement, both parties weren’t serious about this agreement.

However the residual state of Hyderabad and Andhra States were merged, a new State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956 and the Mulki (Domicile) rule was in force in new state AP. The Congress Party respondent 4 formed the government in Andhra Pradesh after 1957 election, and it was responsible to implement Gentlemen’s agreement. If any violations were happening, it was the responsibility of the elected Telangana MLA’s to safe guard the Gentlemen’s agreement. Politicians are responsible for the violations not the (Coastal Andhra or Rayalaseema) Andhra people.

Communist parties (CPI and PDF) were in neck to neck with Congress party in 1952 elections and they gradually lost their hold in Andhra Pradesh by 1969. To regain their strength the PDF party started the Student agitation for the continuation of the Gentlemen’s agreement at Khammam on 16th Jan 1969. According to Mulki rules in 1969 the peoples who migrated to AP capital Hyderabad in 1956 and stayed there as resident for 12 years will be considered as locals, PDF party used this occasion to fuel the agitation. On 19th January, all party accord was reached to ensure the proper implementation of Telangana safeguards. Accord's main points were 1. All non-Telangana employees holding posts reserved for Telangana locals will be transferred immediately. 2. Telangana surpluses will be used for Telangana development. 3. Appeal to Telangana students to call off the agitation. Please consider Justice Bhargava committee 1969 report to find out violations of Gentlemen’s agreement.

The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of Congress party called for a high-level meeting to discuss the issue while ruling out the division of the state, and came up with eight point plan on 12th Apr 1969. Mr. M. Chenna Reddy, the defector from Congress Party and the cosigner of Gentlemen’s agreement, flared up the separate Telangana agitation for his personal gain in Jun 1969, and started Telangana Praja Samithi (TPS) Party. TPS Party won 10 MP seats in the 1971 general elections.

At this juncture the Union of India promised to correct the violations in jobs, budget allocations and educational institutions. Since Congress party was in power at Center and AP, they changed the CM on 30th September 1971, and Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao became the first Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh from Telangana region, In 1972 AP State elections, TPS party won only 1 MLA seat and they merged with Congress party. It was clear that the Telangana agitation was diluted and politically motivated.

As a Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao passed an Ordinance on 2nd May 1971, to reduce the agricultural land ceiling to 12 acres of irrigated land, and he followed it up with the Land Ceiling Act on 15th Sep 1972. This sparked off a tidal wave of anger in the Coastal Andhra region from land lords. These landlords used the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 3rd Oct 1972 to revive Mulki rules. And the implementation of eight point formula for their advantage (to stop the land ceiling act) and started the Jai Andhra agitation.

As a result Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao resigned to CM post on 17th Jan 1973. On 21 September 1973, a political settlement was reached with the Government of India with a Six-Point Formula. It was agreed upon by the leaders of the two regions to prevent any recurrence of such agitations in the future. The Union government made 32nd constitutional amendment and gave special provisions through Article 371d and 371e to the people of Andhra Pradesh for equal opportunity in jobs and educational institutions in Capital City of Hyderabad and a zonal system was introduced to fill the government jobs.

Both agitations are created and inflated for different reasons. There wasn’t any valid cause or reason behind these agitations. And both parties agreed that they will never going to agitate again for separate state. It is evident that the Telangana agitation was there only for couple of years from 1969 to 1971.

In 1985 Telangana employees complained about the violations to six point formula. AP Government enacted government order 610 (GO 610) to correct the violations in recruitment. In all these years Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which doesn’t have much political base in India, in order to increase their base they came with smaller states for better governance slogan. Before 1998 general elections BJP’s AP state unit passed a resolution and made slogan one vote 2 states. After coming to power at center they kept quiet on their slogan.

Before 1999 general elections the Telangana MLAs and MPs under Mr. YSR’s leadership gave a memorandum to Congress Party for the separate state of Telangana. Congress Party submitted this to then Home Minster Mr. L K Advani of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But BJP Govt. rejected the demand for Telangana state and commented that the State of Telangana was not viable.

In 2001 based on complaint AP State Government commissioned Girglani commission to verify the implementation of 1975 Presidential Order on public services and 610 GO. Please consider the Girglani Commission’s report to find out the violations.

It is evident that so far the Telangana agitation was all about government jobs and their promotions, nothing else. And also it is evident that the Political parties were trying to ignite the agitation. Since Congress Party was not able to win the 1996, 1998 and 1999 elections in Center and AP state due to TDP party’s’ domination. Congress Party's think tank hatched a plan to downsize TDP using Telangana separate state agitation.

Mr. KCR was elected for the 3rd time in 1999 as a TDP MLA and got the deputy speaker position, but he wanted to become a Minister and failed to achieve it. In order to achieve his aspirations, he started the TRS party and revived the Telangana agitation slogan in 2001. And the promise made in 1973 that there will be no agitation for separate states was broken.

The Congress party and TRS Party made political alliance for 2004 General and AP State elections and both agreed for 2nd SRC. Congress party added its support to 2nd SRC to its electoral manifesto and came in to power in Center and AP. In 1999 BJP party rejected the Telangana separate statehood, but in 2004 they wanted separate Telangana State. So far TDP party was against AP State separation.

For 2009 general and AP State elections TDP party wanted separate state for Telangana and made alliance with TRS party. BJP also wanted Telangana. But it was not the main agenda for the Congress party, since they were in power. They retained the power in Center and AP State after 2009 general elections.

TRS party and the Telangana agitation was quiet until Mr. YSR’s death. In Nov 2009, Mr. KCR staged a fast unto death drama. Because of Mr. KCR’s arrest, TRS leaders staged suicide drama. Till this point, it was meant to pressurize Congress president to declare CM from Telangana region, and the drama was intended to end. But unexpectedly a Telangana Student committed suicide by burning himself and the electronic media aired these raw graphic images which flared up the Telangana movement. And the situation went out of the hands of its creators.

Congress party high command started realizing that they can’t replace Mr. YSR and believed that (based on Telangana Congress party leaders input) Mr. KCR was going to die, even he was on IV Fluids, they thought that this is the right time to fulfill their ambition to downsize the TDP party. AP govt. conducted all party meeting to discuss Telangana issue, at this moment no party can think of opposing this, since they don’t want to lose their vote banks. They passed a resolution and gave the authority to Central govt. to take a decision on separate Telangana issue. On 9th December 2009 the Government of India announced process of formation for separate Telangana state and stated that an appropriate resolution will be passed in AP State assembly. It was unbelievable for the people of AP even in their dreams. Immediately after the announcement, protests raised in the Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, due to this the decision to form Telangana state was put on hold on December 23, 2009.

TRS party propagated partial facts through Electronic and print media. AP Govt. failed to show the real facts. Because of the UPA’s announcement and its flipping it went deeply into the peoples mind and more people from Telangana region felt that they were looted by Andhra people. So now they wanted their Telangana.

UPA constituted Justice Srikrishna Committee on Telangana in 2010. TRS party and Telangana region politicians opposed this committee. It went to all the regions of state extensively and invited people from all sections of the society to give their opinion on the statehood including political parties. There are so many issues arisen in front of Justice Srikrishna Committee. The committee delivered the report by end of 2010.

On 17th February 2011 noncooperation movement was started which lasted for 16 days with participation by 300,000 government employees. On 10th March 2011 Telangana JAC organized a Million March in Hyderabad. TRS party orchestrated a destruction of 16 Telugu icons statues on tank bund in the name of Telangana agitators with the help of antisocial elements, to portrait that the division between the people is too deep, to scare and warn the people who are opposing the agitation in Telangana region. On 13th Sep 2011 TJAC called for Sakala Janula Samme (All peoples strike), All unions across the Telangana region was joined in the strike, after 42 days it was ended on 24th Oct 2011.

Can we believe the agitations in India? Employee unions, students unions and all kind of unions are affiliated to some political party. Caste & religion based organizations, print & electronic media, corporations are affiliated to political parties. All political parties are run by an individual or a group of high command members. The outcome of every agitation is only benefiting these people one way or the other. So agitations aren’t real and political parties are behind all the agitations.

It is clear and evident that the severe Telangana agitation was restarted in Nov 2009 and lasted until Nov 2011 Sakala Janula Samme. The true total age of the Telangana agitation is 4 years (1969-1971 and 2009-2011) and notable agitation in 2012 for a year. The agitation hasn’t been as long as the separatists claim (60 Years).

The Congress party completely ignored the Justice Srikrishna Committee’s report, and didn’t do anything for 2 years. Once again Home Minister called all party meeting on December 2012, where the Congress party didn’t divulge its opinion. All parties except congress party reiterated their stands on Telangana because they did not want to lose the Telangana vote bank. Congress party took it to their advantage since they were in power. And all of a sudden Congress core committee and CWC took a decision in favor of a separate Telangana state keeping 2014 elections in mind. The timing and the decision is completely political.

This argument concludes that the Telangana separate state agitation is politically motivated and there isn’t any real or considerable reason behind this agitation.

I submitted the above arguments in writing (Written Arguments) in Supreme Court of India as part of my Civil Writ Petition 207 of 2014 (AP State bifurcation issue).

Vande mataram

Thanking You
Vishnu Alluri

Article 3 is like an appendix in our body, now it is in acute condition, it must be removed.

May be our founding fathers were aware that the Article 3 is not as per Union fundamentals, but at the time of drafting our constitution they badly needed the Article 3, to merge 562 princely states into fewer states (Part A (9), B (8), C (10), D (1) States) to give a long lasting stability to Union of India. It should have been abolished after achieving this.

 

Formation of Part A, B, C and D states weren’t able to function properly as multi lingual people were part of the individual states. Since the languages were very distinct in nature, it was very difficult to communicate with each other and extremely difficult to learn all the languages. To accommodate the growing demand for linguistic states, our legislatures continued Article 3. The Central government constituted the State Reorganizations Commission (1st SRC), which recommended formation of the states based on language and ethnicity. The Part A, B, C and D states agreed to reorganize themselves as per the recommendation of 1st SRC.

As per 1st SRC in 1956 we reorganized Part A (9), B (8), C (10), D (1) States into 14 States and 6 UT’s. It ignored few languages like Gujarati, Punjabi and Haryanvi. Our legislatures failed to abolish Article 3, and it gave an opportunity to raise agitations for separation of more states. By 1991 we further divided into 25 States, 6 UT’s and 1 NCT (National Capitol Territory). At least by this time our legislature branch was supposed to abolish Article 3 after 1991, but it failed to do its duty. Because of our Legislature’s failure to abolish Article 3 we are paying a huge price now.

If we review the Article 3

a)      Is this Article as per principles and fundamentals of the Union? No

b)      Is this Article going to uplift the spirit of Democracy? No

c)      For what kind of reasons this Article was brought into the Constitution? It is needed to merge 562 princely states in to fewer states.

d)     Is this Article served its purpose? Yes

e)      Is there any chance to misuse this Article? Yes, National Parties are already misusing it.

f)       Is there any chance to misinterpret this Article? Yes 100% chances are there. Everyone is misinterpreting it for their own benefit because it is ambiguous.

g)      Do we need this Article now and in future? No

h)      Is this Article harmful if we keep it as is? Yes it is harmful and threatening the unity between the people. It must be removed, if not it need an amendment.

It is evident that since 1991 the Article 3 is there in the constitution without any purpose, just like an appendix in our body. Now it is in acute condition, it is swollen and our mother land is suffering with appendicitis, One and only treatment to appendicitis is an immediate appendectomy. It’s the time to abolish Article 3.

I reached out to Mr. President and all states Chief Minsters and requested to take necessary action to abolish Article 3 last year. So far I didn’t receive any communication in this regard from them.

India is suffering with Article 3 the same way. The proof is increase in demand for more separate states. And also India is suffering from pain because of the agitations for separate states. BJP party misused Article 3 for its benefit and created 3 new states in 2000, without any nationwide framework for division of states. Now it’s the Congress party’s turn to misuse Article 3 to separate AP for its electoral and other benefits. Instead of abolishing Article 3, they are using it for their unlawful benefits.

The demand for creation of more states / UT’s is further rising, the list is as follows.

 

 

Awadh / Central Uttar Pradesh	Kamtapur	Ladakh
Bodoland	Karbi Anglong	Mithila
Bundelkhand	Kashmir	Purvanchal
Dimaraji	Kongu Nadu	Telangana
Gorkhaland	Kosal	Tulu Nadu
Harit Pradesh / Paschimanchal / Braj	Kukiland	Vidarbha
Jammu / Dogradesh	Kutch and Saurashtra	Vindhya Pradesh

I submitted the above argument in writing (Written Arguments) in Supreme Court of India as part of my Civil Writ Petition 207 of 2014 (AP State bifurcation issue) and requested to issue appropriate writ or directions to the legislatures and Union of India Respondent 1 to solve amicably all unsolved border disputes between the states, and to abolish the Article 3 at the earliest.

Vande mataram

Thanking You
Vishnu Alluri

Indian States are sovereign and Article 3 is not as per the principles and fundamentals of a Union.

So far through interpretations or judgments we didn’t acknowledge the states sovereignty. As per Article 1 India shall be a Union of States. Our founding fathers couldn’t speak loud about the sovereign states at the time when the constitution was written. If they did, India would have been ended up with around 600 States, and it would have been a big obstacle to build a stable and bigger nation. However sovereignty is the hidden agenda of the Article 1. States and UT’s have territories physically but the Union didn’t have any territory physically.

International Laws define and treat a state as sovereign state, if it meets the following criteria and it treats them as a person while dealing.

1. A defined territory

2. A permanent population

3. A government

4. A capacity to enter into relations with other states.

So as per international laws our Indian States are sovereign, they have a defined territory as per Article 1. They have permanent population. They are governed by elected legislatures through Legislative State Assemblies. They are entering into agreements with fellow states and international organizations and companies.

Not only Article 1, Article 368 also confirms that the Indian States are sovereign. As per Article 368 (2) any amendment to the constitution need 2/3 majority and for some other amendments like “(d) the representation of States in Parliament”needs 2/3rd majority and also half of the State Legislative Assemblies have to approve this. It means that the majority of the Union members have to approve it, and then only that amendment (Bill) is presented to the President for assent. It proves that the Indian States are not federal states, they are sovereign States.

As per Article 2 Parliament has full right to admit the kingdom of Sikkim into Indian Union. But the parliament made 35th constitutional amendment in 1974 and took the union members approval i.e. Half of the states assembly’s resolutions first and then it got the Sikkim in to the union of India through 36th amendment. By doing this the parliament also indirectly agreed that the Indian states are sovereign.

The kingdom of Sikkim joined the Union of India in 1975 as 22nd State, it has a right for its self-existence. Hypothetically, Can Union of India use Article 3 and merge the Sikkim state into West Bengal state without Sikkim States assembly approval and abolish Sikkim statehood? If the Union of India is empowered with such a lethal weapon Article 3, Will the Nepal going to join the Union of India? Has Sikkim lost its sovereign status after it became a member of Union of India? It is clear that the Article 3 is not as per the fundamentals and principles of a union. So Article 3 is contradicting the theme and sprit of Article 1. Article 1 supersedes the Article 3, so Article 3 must be void.

If United Nations (UNO) comes and declares that one of the Indian State is not part of the India and declares that state as independent, then does the Union of India is going to keep quiet? If the UNO is empowered with a power that it can diminish a country or create a new country, then can any country will join such a union? Since UNO is the head of the nations, Can we say that all the countries are not sovereign? It is not true and it is not acceptable, so it is clear that the Union Government can’t take away the sovereign status of its members and their right to self-existence.

Our founding fathers were aware that the Article 3 is not as per Union fundamentals, but at the time of drafting our constitution they badly needed the Article 3, to merge 562 princely states into fewer states (Part A (9), B (8), C (10), D (1) States) to give a long lasting stability to Union of India. It should have been abolished after achieving this. Instead they took away the Article 3 from Parliament through Constitutional 5th Amendment in 1956 and they maintained the States sovereignty.

As per 5th Amendment to Article 3 in 1955 “Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States ” This part applies to Article 3a and 3e. The bifurcation and to alter the name of a state process must start with a proposal from the corresponding state, it is also indirectly honoring the states sovereignty. The next part “the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views” This part applies only to Article 3b, 3c and 3d. The President initiates and sends a bill to the concerned state or states, to obtain its views only in case of border dispute between the states. The 5th amendment to Article 3 is ambiguous and failed to spell out the above in detail, everyone is misinterpreting it and taking this for their advantage.

Until 1999 all the states were bifurcated based on the 1st SRC, and the corresponding states legislative assemblies proposed the bifurcation bill, so the divisions and their processes uphold the sovereignty of the states.

I submitted the above argument in writing (Written Arguments) in Supreme Court of India as part of my Civil Writ Petition 207 of 2014 and requested to declare that all the states of the Union of India as sovereign. And the states have the right for self-existence.

Vande mataram

Thanking You

Vishnu Alluri

 

 

Does the UPA influence the SC bench and present CJI against AP State bifurcation cases also?

Honorable retired Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju’s recent revelations are exceptional, I adore him. Dharmo rakshati rakshitha. His blogs on Corruption in Judiciary are Blog Link 1 Blog Link 2

Without any law background I e-filed a Civil Writ Petition 207 / 2014 in Supreme Court on 17^thDec 2013 as Petitioner in Person from USA, came to India twice and attended the case. My case was supposed to be listed in front of constitutional bench, since my contention is that the Indian States are sovereign and Article 3 is not as per the fundamentals and principles of a union. My argument is that Article 3 is like an appendix in our body, now it is in acute condition, so it must be removed. Instead of hearing my case in front of constitutional bench they tagged my case along with WP(C) 161 / 2014 which was filed against AP State division.

Preventive measures are always better than the treatment, earlier Supreme Court turned downed the petitions related to AP State division stating that the matter is premature, I felt it is nothing but saying that if someone is raping, let the rape complete and then come here with proof. We came up with proof, but still honorable Supreme Court is telling us (by giving more time) to wait because the rapist is busy with his business?

The group of Minster’s (GOM on AP State Bifurcation) took just 55 days to divide AP State, Honorable President gave 42 days to Andhra Pradesh state assembly to elicit its views. The parliament didn’t even spend two days to discuss and approve AP Reorganization Bill 2013 in democratic way. UPA govt. had spent 60 days without filing the counter reply, on top of it they requested 45 days more time to file the reply. And the SC ignored the facts that the AP State bifurcation Act is coming into force from June 2^nd and still gave the respondents 45 day’s extension, the SC bench is supposed to take up this case in 1^stweek of July and it should have been referred to the Constitutional Bench, instead of doing so SC gave extra 50 days’ time and listed it on Aug 20^thand encouraging the murderers of the democracy and Constitutional violators to cover up their tracks. The question arises is this court also taking part as one of them? Still today the Union government is failed to submit the counter reply.

As per Article 368 if any bill going to change the representation of states in Parliament it must be approved by both the houses of the Parliament with 2/3rd majority and it must be sent to all States Assemblies for ratification. Upon 50% of the State’s approval that bill can be sent for President’s approval. Upon President’s approval that bill will become as an Act and it will be implemented from its appointment date. UPA violated the Article 368 while making Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act 2014 and it didn’t sent the bill to all State Assemblies for their approval, by doing this UPA govt. took away the voting rights of the 28 States. If the SC’s Jurisdiction is down sized in the same manner, Will this Supreme Court respond the same way?

Article 368’s violation is the most dangerous and unacceptable violation. What if this kind of use will become precedent and they use Article 368 and change the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction by changing Chapter IV of Part V? or they change the extent of executive power of the Union or a state?

SC’s primary duty is to safe guard the Constitution, and it is supposed to take up this case on its own through suo-motu action. But the SC bench forgot its duty and acted in the tunes of UPA govt. and let the unconstitutional enacted Act to come into the force. I suspected that the SC bench has some nexus with UPA and I complained about this to the Chief Justice of India through a letter and an email, they received it on 7^th May 2014, So far I didn’t receive any response from his highness. A doubt arose in my mind that may be he is also under pressure of UPA govt. Recent exceptional revealing’s of Justice Katju proved that the UPA influenced the former 3 CJI’s. UPA’s witchcraft worked well on SC bench and present CJI as well against all the 25 cases on AP State bifurcation issue.

Through this blog I am trying to bring up this injustice into the light and hoping that it will alert the SC and bring the awareness among the fellow citizens of India.
 

Vande mataram

Thanking You

Vishnu Alluri.