The Telangana Statehood Demand : A Modus Vivendi : The Meghalaya-Assam 1969-70 Pattern

7/29/2019 The Telangana Statehood Demand : A Modus Vivendi : The Meghalaya-Assam 1969-70 Pattern

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-telangana-statehood-demand-a-modus-vivendi-the-meghalaya-assam-1969-70 1/4

A MODUS VIVENDI ON STATEHOOD

FOR TELANGANA :

The Assam- Meghalaya 1969-70 Pattern

By Anil Nauriya

That the case for the formation of a Telangana State is strong tends to be widely

accepted. Many of the districts which make up Telangana have remained economically

backward; undoubtedly their development requires special attention. While this is readilyconceded, what worries many observers is the cascading effect that the creation of

Telangana would have on similar demands for Statehood elsewhere. A new State can

engender new social problems as well with the coming to the fore of “new minorities”and marginalised groups.

Apart from this, the creation of a new State gives rise to an array of administrative issueswhich result in considerable dislocation. In the case of Telangana, political parties have

been trimming their sails to the prevailing winds in the various regions of present-dayAndhra Pradesh. Consequently, some parties find themselves committed to cross-

purposes either directly or through their local units both to an undivided Andhra Pradesh

and to the creation of Telangana. There is a way out of this tangle which could be notonly politically acceptable to all concerned but also administratively preferable to the

immediate creation of a full-fledged State.

The solution, perhaps, lies in adopting a model similar to the one tried through the Assam

Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act 1969 [ARMA, 69]. This legislation was made possible

by the Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act, 1969, which, by inserting Article244A, introduced a rather original idea into the Constitution in relation to the State of

Assam. This Article made it possible to establish an “Autonomous State” within the Stateof Assam. Not many may remember that before Meghalaya became a full-fledged State,

it was constituted as an “Autonomous State” within Assam with its own Chief Minister,

Cabinet and Legislative Assembly. Under ARMA 69, Meghalaya was constituted 40

years ago, in January 1970, as an “autonomous state” within the State of Assam. Full-fledged Statehood for Meghalaya, came somewhat later under the North-Eastern Areas



(Reorganisation) Act 1971, when the States of Manipur and Tripura were also

established. As the 1969 law, which established Meghalaya as an “autonomous state”

within Assam, was not worked for long, being overtaken by the 1971 legislation, theARMA 69 approach in resolving some festering disputes has not received a full trial and

has not been adequately explored.

Under ARMA 69, a division of legislative responsibilities was made between the Legis-

lative Assemblies of Assam and Meghalaya. The matters listed under the State List andConcurrent List of the Constitution of India were allocated as between the two

Assemblies. Under this allocation, as many as 61 out of 66 entries in the State List were

either wholly or substantively placed in what came to be called the “Autonomous StateList”. This list included such matters as agriculture and land, including rights in land. In

addition, four matters from the Concurrent List were also made available for legislation

by the Autonomous State. A Concurrent List between the Autonomous State and theState of Assam was also drawn up. It was further provided that for several purposes,

including those of the Finance Commission set up under Article 280 of the Constitution

to recommend the criteria for the distribution of revenues to and among States, referencesto States would include the Autonomous State formed under ARMA, 69.

There would be advantages in following this pattern, with appropriate modifications for

Telangana, if it is similarly constituted as an “Autonomous State” within Andhra Pradesh.

A constitutional amendment and also some variations of the ARMA 69 pattern will, of course, be necessary to bring this about. For example, by ARMA 69 some State subjects

like public order and industry were retained by the Legislative Assembly of Assam and

not transferred to Meghalaya. In the case of Telangana, industry would have to be

included among the transferred subjects as lack of industrial development has been one of the principal grievances of the region.

Interestingly, ARMA 69 did transfer matters relating to the regulation of mines and

mineral development from Assam to the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. For obviousreasons, such a provision would be relevant also for resource-rich Telangana. But the

transfer of “public order” to the Telangana legislature might be held over until there are

adequate guarantees that the kind of demands that were made in Mulki Rules-style

agitations some decades ago would not result in any deprivation of rights of any regionalor other minorities in the Telangana area.

¨

Politically, an approach based on the ARMA 69 pattern would meet the twin objective of

constituting a Telangana State without actually breaking up Andhra Pradesh.Administratively, it would provide time for the completion of certain necessary

arrangements for an eventually complete separation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh

at a later stage, should an overall consensus evolve by then. This would also keep openthe theoretical possibility of public opinion within the Telangana area opting a few years

later to remain within Andhra Pradesh and make permanent the “Autonomous State”

arrangement, based on the ARMA 69 model. This model could also help avoid



intractable disputes over such matters as the location of the capital city. At any rate, such

disputes would, in this framework, probably not assume an irreconciliable character.

Had the Centre not been in a tearing hurry in the year 2000, ARMA 69 might have been asuitable pattern to follow in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh when the legislation to re-

organise Bihar and Madhya Pradesh was enacted. The administration in these two areaswas ill-prepared when Statehood was suddenly thrust upon the two areas carved out as

States. Even in the case of present-day Uttarakhand, which was also formed at the time by the re-organisation of Uttar Pradesh, it is well known that work in the new High Court

established at Nainital was held up for months on end before cases and records could be

transferred from the Allahabad High Court. Had the ARMA 69 model been adopted itwould have provided sufficient time for administrative arrangements to be completed.

But it is not simply as an interim arrangement that ARMA 69 can be useful. In the case of

Meghalaya, the formation of the Autonomous State in 1969 was not originally conceived

as a transitional arrangement though, of course, Meghalaya did attain full-fledged

Statehood sometime later. The ARMA 69 pattern, which is essentially a devolutionmodel, could help resolve other persistent demands such as those for the formation of

Gorkhaland and Vidarbha. As time passes, there would be greater administrative and political constraints on the multiplication of the number of States in India. Alternative

methods of devolution of power will, therefore, need to be explored.

The cry for forming Gorkhaland by breaking up West Bengal poses a special dilemma.

While the demand for Statehood has been increasingly pressing, re-organisation of Bengal has histori-cally been the cause for so much resentment that it would not fail to

revive old wounds. The further division of Punjab, some 20 years after 1947, was a

somewhat different case because the demand for a new and reconstituted Punjab in the

mid-sixties had come from within the Punjabi heartland. For strategic reasons also, and particularly in the light of recent developments in neighbouring Nepal, the demand for

full-fledged Statehood for Gorkhaland is not likely to be conceded by any CentralGovernment in a hurry. This is the context in which the ARMA 69 pattern, with suitable

variations, may be worth considering. It would preserve the unity of West Bengal while

conceding to the Gorkha areas Statehood in substance.

The case for an autonomous State of Vidarbha on the ARMA 69 pattern is irresistible oneconomic grounds. The misery of rural Vidarbha in particular has been underlined by the

many peasants who have been driven to desperation during the past several years.

Successive governments in Maharashtra do not appear to have done justice to the region

and have failed in their primary duty towards the area and its people. As the ARMA 69 pattern would not involve the break-up of Maharashtra, it would probably not encounter

resistance from sectarian groups within that State. At some stage, the ARMA 69 model

may, perhaps, also be considered for certain regions of Jammu and Kashmir when proposals for greater autonomy for the State as a whole are considered.



Documents

The Telangana Statehood Demand : A Modus Vivendi : The Meghalaya-Assam 1969-70 Pattern