States Reorganisation Commission Report

Telangana people waited for development for last 50years... But nothing happened... In the 50years of united state, no single project is constructed in Telananga area (though godavari is flowing through 5districts of Telangana). It's the time for separation.

The existing Andhra State has faced a financial problem of some magnitude ever since it was created and in comparison with Telangana, the existing Andhra State has low per capita revenue. Telangana, on the other hand, is much less likely to be faced with financial embarrassment. The much higher incidence of land revenue in Telangana and excise revenue of the order of Rs 5 crore per annum principally explain this difference. Whatever the explanation may be, some Telangana leaders seem to fear that the result of unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development schemes may be financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that which Andhra is now faced. Telangana claims to be progressive and from an administrative point of view, unification it is contended, is not likely to confer any benefits on this area.

When plans for future development are taken into account, Telangana fears that the claims of this area may not receive adequate consideration in Vishalandhra. The Nandikonda and Kushtapuram (Godavari) projects are, for example, among the most important which Telangana or the country as a whole has undertaken.

Irrigation in the coastal deltas of these two great rivers is however, also being planned. Telangana, therefore does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the utilisation of the waters of Krishna and Godavari.

One of the principal causes of opposition of Vishalandhra also seems to be the apprehension felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the coastal areas. In the Telangana districts outside the city of Hyderabad, education is woefully backward.

The result is that a lower qualification than in Andhra is accepted for public services. The real fears of the people of Telangana is that if they enjoy Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately, while Telangana, itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra.

 ‘The Telangana’ it has further been argued, can be stable and viable unit considered by itself. The revenue receipts of this area on current account have been estimated at about Rs 17 crore, and although the financing of Krishna and Godavari projects will impose a recurring burden on the new state by way of interest charges, the probable deficit, if any is unlikely to be large. In favourable conditions, the revenue budget may be balanced or indicate a marginal surplus.

This fairly optimistic forecast can be explained or justified by a variety of reasons.

 One important reason is, of course, that the existing Hyderabad State and Telangana as part of Hyderabad have benefited considerably from the implementation of April 1952, of the Finance Commissions’ recommendations. The increase in Central payments from out of the divisible pools of income tax and central excise which has been possible under the present arrangements and the reduction in police expenditure for which the credit can be taken, as the situation in Telangana improves, more or less offset the loss on account of the abolition of internal customs duties, and if the scope which exists of raising the yield of certain State heads of revenue is fully explored, the financial position of Telangana need not cause anxiety.

The State of Hyderabad

The advantages of the formation of Vishalandhra are obvious. The desirability of bringing the Krishna and Godavari river basins under unified control, the trade affiliations between Telangana and Andhra and the suitability of Hyderabad as the capital for the entire region are in brief the arguments in favour of the bigger unit.

 It seems to us, therefore, that there is much to be said for the formation of the larger State and that nothing should be done to impede the realisation of this goal. At the same time, we have to take note of the important fact that, while opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself. Important leaders of public opinion in Andhra themselves seem to appreciate that the unification of Telangana with Andhra, though desirable, should be based on a voluntary and willing association of the people and that it is primarily for the people of Telangana to take a decision about their future.

 We understand that the leaders of the existing Andhra State may be prepared to provide adequate safeguards to protect the interest of Telangana in the event of its integration in Vishalandhra. These safeguards may take the form of a guarantee (presumably on the lines of Sri Bagh 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, that is to say, roughly in the proportion, and an assurance that particular attention will be paid to the development plans of this area.

 We have carefully gone into the details of the arrangements which may be made on these lines, It seems to us, however, that neither guarantees on the lines of the Sri Bagh Pact nor constitutional devices, such as “Scottish devolution” in the United Kingdom, will provide workable or meet the requirements of Telangana during the period of transition. Anything short of supervision by the Central Government over the measures intended to meet the special needs of Telangana will be found ineffective, and we are not disposed to suggest any such arrangement in regard to Telangana.

 A further point to be borne in mind is that the State of Andhra was brought into existence only recently and has still not got over the stress of transition. It has for example, still to formulate a policy on land reforms and the problems arising from the partition from the Composite State of Madras have, by no means, been tackled fully yet. Integration of Telangana with Andhra at this stage, is therefore, likely to create administrative difficulties both for Andhra and Telangana.

 After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well if Telangana area is constituted into a separate State, which may be known at the Hyderabad State, with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections, likely to be held in or about 1961, if by a two-thirds majority the legislature of the residency of Hyderabad State expresses itself in favour of such unification.

The advantage of this arrangement will be that while the objective of the unification of the Andhra will neither be blurred nor impeded during a period of five or six years, the two governments may have stabilised their administrative machinery and, if possible, also reviewed their land revenue systems etc., the object in view being the attainment of uniformity. The intervening period may incidentally provide an opportunity for allaying apprehensions and achieving the consensus of opinion necessary for a real union between the two States.

 If, however, our hopes for the development of the environment and conditions congenial to the unification of the two areas do not materialise and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallizes itself against the unification of the two states.

Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit.

The State of Hyderabad (as we would prefer to all this unit) to be constituted for the time being, should consist of the following districts, namely, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Hyderabad, Medak and Bidar and Munagaala enclave in Nalgonda district belonging to the Krishna district of the existing Andhra State.