Only Facts : What the Seemandhra ministers mentioned in their memo to SKC.

AbdulMuqtadir Syed / Headlines / 20 Comments

Did or did not 16 ministers from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema explicitly describe the demand for a separate state of Telangana as something akin to sedition? In the face of protests against their controversial petition to the Srikrishna panel, some of the ministers have claimed that they said nothing of the sort, and, as usual, accused the media of misrepresenting facts. Yes, the ministers did not say so orally while speaking to mediapersons after meeting the panel. But the written word is what matters, and this is what is stated on Page 23 of the 62-page ‘Memorandum to Justice Sri Krishna Committee’ submitted by the ministers:

“In any case, the Central Government should be careful not to give credence to demands like self rule and self respect as it will certainly be sowing seeds for disintegration of the country.Asking for a separate state on the ground of self respect and self rule is equivalent to waging a war against Indian Union. It is surprising that the Central government has appointed a committee to look into these anti-national demands. This is most reprehensible and dubious ground for formation of a new state under Article 3 of the Constitution of India.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘sedition’ as “conduct or speech inciting rebellion against state”.

Interestingly, this paragraph and a few others in the petition were highlighted by the ministers.

The ministers felt they were right in criticizing the Union government though it is headed by their own party. Another minister, however, was candid enough to admit that though he was in the delegation to the Srikrishna Committee, he had not read the report to which he is a signatory. The ministers were strident in their criticism of the Centre at quite a few places in the memorandum.

On Page 20, the report pointed out that Article 3 of the Constitution empowers the Central government to form new states and that nobody can oppose any decision taken by it in respect of future reorganization of states as long “as it is in the larger public interest and has a rational basis like creation of linguistic states on the basis of the recommendations of the SRC.”

At the same time, the ministers contended that the “power vested in the Centre under Article 3 is only an enabling power, the exercise of which has to conform to the principles of rationality, transparency and objectivity and the decision should be intelligible and must be capable of being applied in all similar cases.”

In the light of the above, the report argued that the demand for formation of a new state cannot be conceded merely because all political parties in a particular state agree to it or because they say so in their election manifestos unless the “Central government decides to make this as the basis for creation of new states in future as a matter of general policy.” Buttressing this argument, the ministers pointed out that there were “umpteen number of cases” where the Central government has not acted despite State Legislatures passing unanimous resolutions. SC categorisation is the best example. All major parties in AP have been supporting categorisation. A unanimous resolution was passed in the State Legislature, despite which, for years, the Central government has been showing disinclination to accede to the request for fear of fallout in other states.”

You might be interested in :