Reply to the Article: 'Centre studying proposal to seek Presidential reference to court'
Sir,
This is in response to the front page article 'Centre studying proposal to seek Presidential reference to court' published on 5th January 2010. The correspondent quoting a legal expert concluded that Justice Fazal Ali's first SRC rejected the idea of formation of Telangana part of erstwhile Hyderabad state into a separate State. The article concluded with an observation to support the above conclusion. Nothing can be farther from truth. The SRC's report, pertaining to Andhra and Hyderabad state, has three parts - paras 369 to 374 dealing with 'Case for Vishalandhra', paras 375 to 380 dealing with 'Case for Telangana' and paras 381 to 389 dealing with 'the State of Hyderabad'. It is in the paras 381 to 389 that the commision gave its conclusion. It said - "After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusion that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as 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 residuary Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification". Hence it is clear that the Commission wanted the Telangana part of the erstwhile Hyderabad State be formed into a separate State and Vishalandhra be deferred at least till 1961. Also, Jawaharlal Nehru opined that the idea of Vishalandhra bore a 'tint of expansionist imperialism'. He compared it with matrimonial alliance having “provision for divorce” if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well. Had the great man not succumbed to the pressure of Andhra leaders,Telangana would not have been in a sorry state as it exists today. I am saddened to note that the correspondent's writeup is completely misleading and only hope that it was not deliberate!
http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/06/stories/2010010655540801.htm - Published on 1/6/2010
Reply to 'Way out in Andhra Pradesh'
Sir,
This is in response to the editorials that appeared in your newspapers on 9th and 24th December - 'Correct diagnosis, wrong cure' and 'Way out in Andhra Pradesh'. The attempt to limit the struggle for reviving the Telangana part of erstwhile Hyderabad state to mere developmental inequalities displays The Hindu's lack of understanding of the ground realities in the state. The 1969 'Jai Telangana' movement broke out demanding the strict implemetation of the provisions of 'Gentlemen's Agreement' of 1956 that effected the conditional merger of Telangana and the Andhra state. Since there were no genuine efforts in this respect even in the next four decades, the 'development theory' does not hold water anymore!
I strongly object your observation that the movement for Telangana is 'orchestrated'. It applies to the 'agitation' which abruptly ended after the Chidambaram's statement on 23rd December. People from every walk of life in Telangana are for a separate State and expressed their desire through various forms in the current wave of movement that is sixty years old!
I am saddened to say that The Hindu's reflection on the subject is close to elitists' general opposition to questioning the 'status quo'. But the people of Telangana never accepted the unjust 'status quo' nor will they ever accept it in future. Forming a separate Telangana state is the only way out!
Not published!!
Subject: Chidambaram's 3rd statement
This is with reference to the reported 3rd statement of Union Home Minister Sri P.Chidambaram. Mr.Chidambaram in the statement announced that a Committee will be formed within a week to 'deliberate' on the Telangana issue. Though the decision of the Union government is welcome, the annoncement and the Committee that follows will be taken with a pinch of salt. Telangana has seen many Agreements, Formulas, Committees,Commissions and GOs that could do little to assuage their feeling of injustice. Even in the present instance, it was not made clear if the formation of the Committee is to clear the hurdles in the way of forming a new State or to ascertain if the demand for a new State is worth heeding to!
Not published!!
Subject: On Rahman winning Grammys
Sir,
This is my reaction on A.R.Rahman winning two Grammys at Los Angeles in 'Best Compilation Soundtrack for a Motion Picture' and 'Best Motion Picture Song' categories. After the 'Oscar win', this was only a logical next for him. Honestly, I feel there are many better songs than 'Jai Ho' composed by Rahaman. But the Background score for the movie definitely is one of his Bests. Music lovers internationally, will 'discover' what this 'Mozart of Madras' is really upto only when they go through some of his compositions for Hindi and Tamil movies.
As a 'believer', I really feel Rahman is the symbol of Indian secularism. He never forgets to acknowledge the Almighty and his Sufi 'Pirs' whenever he receives accolades for his music. In fact he showed, as many of successful Indians before him, what deep spirituality can bring out of a person. Sufism and Bhakti are two greatest assets this country has given to itself and the world. One should take this lesson from A.R. Rahman's uprecedented successes. May his tribe increase!!
http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/03/stories/2010020354630803.htm - Published on 03/02/2010
Subject: Mumbai for All
Sir,
This is in response to Siddharth Varadarajan's article 'Can the idea of India pass the Thackeray test?' and the discussion that's going on in the country. The message can't be more clear. It's time for the Indian Government to stop being a spectator to the drama, that's been enacted for so long in Maharashtra, of whose script is so debilitating for the integrity and unity of the country. The 'pernicious' ideology must be tackled both politically and legally. In this respect, it's heartening to note that, at last, even if for political stakes in UP and Bihar, RSS and BJP joined Indian National Congress in challenging the designs of Shiva Sena and Mahrashtra Navnirman Sena(MNS). On the other hand, all the provisions of the law must be made use to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens as espoused in the Constitution. The irony in this country is, these divisionist parties and individuals have a very good 'eye' for people's real botherations and devise solutions that are more dangerous than the problems themselves. The governments, media and civil society must highlight and address, whichever is applicable, the problems of the common man so as to stop these extremists exploiting their helplessness.
Not published.
Subject: Sri Krishna Committee on Telangana
Sir,
This is with reference to the Terms of Reference of Sri Krishna Committee as announced by the Union Home Ministry. Sir, People of Telangana expected that the Committee will be asked to examine the reservations, concerns, objections of the people of rest of the Andhra Pradesh in the event of formation of a separate state of Telangana.The unequivocal Decembar 9 statement of Mr.Chidambaram got diluted with a thoroughly ambiguous December 23 statement. With the Terms of Reference it is clear that the Centre once again conspiring to dissipate the movement by buying time.
Sir, Creating new states is the exclusive prerogative of the Centre. Article 3 of the constitution confers no role on the State government except for expressing it's views, which are, in any case, not binding on the Centre. If the Centre was sincere in carving out Telangana, it would have taken the views of the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema people and assured them of justice. But the Union government once again buckled under pressure from the expert lobbyists from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema! In the process, it had set a wrong precedent by asking the Committee to advise it on whether or not a separate State is to be created.
Not published.
Subject: Telangana issue
Sir,
This is with reference to the editorial 'The way forward on Telangana'. On the face of it, the Terms of Reference of Sri Krishna Committee look absolutely fine to those who are oblivious of 53 years of Telangana's travails in united Andhra Pradesh. Every effort of Telangana in getting what is rightfully theirs and what was promised was opposed and obstructed by the people of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. People's desire to stay as a separate State was not respected when Telangana merged with rest of Andhra. Even the first SRC cautioned the goverment of any such hasty merger. But Andhra lobbyists had it go their way. The All Party Accord of January 19, 1969 identified 25,000 appointments violating Gentlemen's Agreement, and ordered repatriation. Not only the repatriation, even the validity of Mulki Rules - which reserved government jobs in Telangana for the locals - were questioned. Supreme Court in 1972 held the Rules to be constitutionally valid after a prolonged legal battle. The Andhras rose again! With 'Jai Andhra' agitation they forced the Union government annul the Mulki Rules and Telangana Regional Committee by amending the Constitution.
The latest Terms of Reference is just another instance of Andhra bullying Telangana with their majority. By asking the Committee to examine the case for united Andhra Pradesh, Telangana issue was taken to pre-TRS days. The movement made every political party of significance helpless but to change its stand for a Telangana State. Pranab Mukherjee sub-Committee was formed in November 2004 to go into the issue and to build consensus.The Committee proved to be a damp squib and, at hindsight, was part of UPA's great drama of buying time. After the December 9 statement and subsequent reaffirmation in both the Houses of Parliament, the appropriate course of action would have been appointing a departmental Committee to allay the legitimate fears of people of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. But the Centre once again succumbed to lobbying of leaders of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
The fifth point in ToRs, which asks the Committee to seek 'a range of solutions' and identify the optimal solutions, clearly indicates which way the Committee is heading to! The Committee will be another item in the long list of 'instruments' - democratic, legal and political - to trample the genuine aspirations of Telangana. You can't select Sachin Tendulkar to Indian foot ball team and expect him to win the match for you! Telangana issue reached a point of no return! Hope better sense prevails on the Centre.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/18/stories/2010021858601500.htm
Subject: Sachin meets Saraswat
Sir,
This is with reference to the article 'Sachin meets Saraswathi' published in 'The Hindu' on 6th April, 2010. It is no secret that Sachin Tendulkar is the most followed sportsperson in India, if not the world! But the admiration of Ms. Saraswathi Vaidyanthan for Sachin definitely stands out. Over a period of 20 years Sachin ougrew the sport which brought him the fame. He's not merely a winner of matches but also a winner of hearts. Whereever he goes, he brings with him that simplicity, which is almost indefeatable as his blade before the stumps. People like me, in millions, lived life in all its possible manifestations as we watched Sachin play - ecstacy to embarrassment, rejoice to renunciation and every feeling in between. Now we reached that state of equanimity and a win or loss does not really bother us! We just watch Sachin play. We take anything that comes from his bat. After all, we love life howsoever painful it is at times!
Not published.
Subject: APPSC Group - I controversy
Sir,
The raging controversy surrounding the APPSC Group I Preliminary Examination could have been easily avoided, had the Government of Andhra Pradesh acted swiftly and with purpose. However they let the problem take an ugly shape. Add to it, APPSC is stubbornly going ahead with its plan to conduct the exam on 5th September resulting in total chaos in the minds of aspirants not to speak of the potential break down of law and order situation in the State.
With the APPSC stands exposed with information obtained through RTI it lost its credibility in the eyes of asptirants from Telangana. On the otherhand, there is no way the State government can give 42% reservation to Telangana, except through a constitutional amendment at the Centre. Therefore, the appropriate action would be to take the help of UPSC. This should satisfy the demands of both Telangana and rest of AP. This provision is there in the Constitution under Article 315(4) which reads -- The Public Service Commission for the Union, if requested so to do by the Governor of a State, may,with the approval of the President, agree to serve all or any of the needs of the State.
Not published.
Subject: Ayodhya judgement
Sir,
This is with reference to the Allahabad High Court's judgment on the protracted dispute over the title of a piece of land in Ayodhya and 'The Hindu's coverage in today's newspaper. The editorial and the 'News Analysis' of Siddharth Varadarajan made an interesting reading. While Mr. Siddharth and other eminent lawyers, historians and archaeologists cautioned over the consequences of the 'overreach' of the judiciary in pronouncing a judgment on a vexatious issue based on 'faith' and 'belief', others saw it as an 'outreach' to put an end to bloody past. However, even if one accepts this 'Panchayati' justice, its implementation seems highly unlikely to me given the initial response from the sangh parivar and some Muslim leaders. While welcoming the judgment many of parivar's outspoken personalities displayed veiled restraint. But the underlying jubilation is hard to miss. The talk of 'Bhavya Mandir' is conspicuously silent on the question of a prospective mosque in the 1/3rd land the Muslims are now entitled to. This was a clear euphemism to outright majoritarianism when one of them advised Muslims to pave the way for a national integration by showing their 'magnanimity' and 'broadmindedness' by relinquishing claim over the land it got. On the otherhand, some of the Muslims chose to call it a 'surrender' if they accept to share the disputed land with the Hindus.
Under the circumstances, leaving the matter to the Apex court is the only left over option. This gives a chance to correct the overreach of the High Court and the interregnum can definitley utilised to outreach the aggrieved parties. If a reconciliation could not be achieved outside the court, at least the delay will have subsided the steam around this contentious issue. The exemplary response of the general public to the judgment is a case in point.
Not published.
Subject: India's sensational win at Mohali
Sir,
This is with reference to India's sensational win in the first of the two-Test series against Australia played at Mohali. Another Very Very Special innings from Laxman saw India through to a historic win which looked like an herculean task once Dhoni was run out. Ably aided by rookie Ishant Sharma, Laxman brought all his experience into play and showed to the world why he's feared so much by the best in the business - the Aussies. Though Laxman proved his mettle time and agian in winning matches from the jaws of defeat, he remained an underrated cricketer. But today, Indian cricket acknowledges the contribution of this wristy batsman more than it did before.
Also, this match showcases the true pleasure of watching an intensely fought Test cricket, where the fortunes of each team changing every session. Kudos to both the teams for the feast they treated millions of cricket fans to! I am reminded of Nirmal Shekar's comment in a column: "If Test cricket was decked up in an Armani three-piece suit and the 50-overs game was cricket in jeans and T-shirt, then T20 is the sport presented in its underwear."
Not published.
Subject: Telangana issue
Sir,
This is with reference to the Op-Ed article "One poeple, many aspirations" by S. Nagesh Kumar. The article tried, albeit vainly, to balance the contentions from both Telangana and Andhra regions. For the last 60 years, the aspirations of the people of Telangana have never been heeded or honoured by the union and State governments. Any just measure - political, executive or judicial - to the benefit of the region is either diluted, implemented in deviation or simply shelved through political machinations, deceptive administrative interpretations or through the use of brute force. Starting from the heroic peasant uprising against feudalism and autocratic Nizam rule, Telangana wanted a new lease of life through self-rule. This was confirmed when the first SRC in conclusion advised the Union government to constitute Telangana as a separate State at least for the next 6 years as the opinion of the people there was yet to crystallize in favour of Vishalandhra. Also, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao - considered by many as a proponent of Vishalandhra - wrote to U.N.Dhebar, the then President of INC, informing him of the mood of Telangana people against the merger. Despite, the merger took place. When people of Telangana demanded strict implementation of Safeguards guaranteed under Gentlemen's Agreement, they got a bombshell in the form of Six Point Formula. The Supreme Court verdict upholding the Mulki Rules was nullified by amending the constitution. SPF abolished Mulki Rules, Telangana Regional Committee - instruments that guaranteed equity. Even this lopsided formula was never implemented in its spirit. The Presidential Orders of 1975 and the subsequent G.O.No.610 failed to curtail the illegal usurping of jobs that rightfully belonged to Telangana by the Andhras. The highhandedness of Andhra bureacracy was revealed when they refused to cooperate with the Girglani Comission. Girglani's report too gathered dust as many before. And post December 9, 2009 Statement from the Government of India, Andhras are again at it. But people of Telangana are not ready to relent this time. Only a role reversal can solve this issue for ever. Statehood to Telanganites and Safeguards to Andhras.
Not published.
Subject: Srikrishna Committee report
Sir,
This is with reference to the article "What the Srikrishna Commitee says on Telangana" and the editorial "A sagacious prescription" published in your newspaper on 7th January, 2011. The Committee presented 6 options to the Government of India of which first 4 were considered "the least favoured", "not practicable", "not acceptable to all the regions" and "difficult to reach political consensus". Of the remaining 2 options, one advocated the creation of Telangana State with Hyderabad as its capital and the other favoured united Andhra Pradesh with constitutional / statutory safeguards to Telangana region. The sixth option - regarded by the Committee as the "best way forward" is riddled with many contradictions. It reads " The Committee is of the considered view that the momentum for a separate Telangana started picked up from the time the decisions incorporated in the Gentlemen's Agreement were not implemented. With the constitution of the proposed statutory council, these grievances would be taken care of." Telangana Regional Committee - with more or less the same mandate as the SKC-suggested Telangana Regional Council - was one of the safeguards espoused in the Gentlemen's Agreement. The Committee was constituted by the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 and was repealed after the 'Jai Andhra' agitation through 32nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1973. For the 13 years it was in force, it was observed only in violation. The TRC annual reports stand testimony to this. So this option was also exhausted and the Committee's opinion that "firm political and administrative management" will be to the satisfaction of maximum number of people is only naive idealism. If the Committee, with extensive work for almost an year, ends up "reinventing the wheel" of Telangna Regional Council, one can safely conclude that bifurcation of the State is the only way forward. Statehood to Telangana and Safeguards to the Seemandhra will only solve the issue permanently.
Not published.
Sir,
This is in response to the front page article 'Centre studying proposal to seek Presidential reference to court' published on 5th January 2010. The correspondent quoting a legal expert concluded that Justice Fazal Ali's first SRC rejected the idea of formation of Telangana part of erstwhile Hyderabad state into a separate State. The article concluded with an observation to support the above conclusion. Nothing can be farther from truth. The SRC's report, pertaining to Andhra and Hyderabad state, has three parts - paras 369 to 374 dealing with 'Case for Vishalandhra', paras 375 to 380 dealing with 'Case for Telangana' and paras 381 to 389 dealing with 'the State of Hyderabad'. It is in the paras 381 to 389 that the commision gave its conclusion. It said - "After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusion that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as 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 residuary Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification". Hence it is clear that the Commission wanted the Telangana part of the erstwhile Hyderabad State be formed into a separate State and Vishalandhra be deferred at least till 1961. Also, Jawaharlal Nehru opined that the idea of Vishalandhra bore a 'tint of expansionist imperialism'. He compared it with matrimonial alliance having “provision for divorce” if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well. Had the great man not succumbed to the pressure of Andhra leaders,Telangana would not have been in a sorry state as it exists today. I am saddened to note that the correspondent's writeup is completely misleading and only hope that it was not deliberate!
http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/06/stories/2010010655540801.htm - Published on 1/6/2010
Reply to 'Way out in Andhra Pradesh'
Sir,
This is in response to the editorials that appeared in your newspapers on 9th and 24th December - 'Correct diagnosis, wrong cure' and 'Way out in Andhra Pradesh'. The attempt to limit the struggle for reviving the Telangana part of erstwhile Hyderabad state to mere developmental inequalities displays The Hindu's lack of understanding of the ground realities in the state. The 1969 'Jai Telangana' movement broke out demanding the strict implemetation of the provisions of 'Gentlemen's Agreement' of 1956 that effected the conditional merger of Telangana and the Andhra state. Since there were no genuine efforts in this respect even in the next four decades, the 'development theory' does not hold water anymore!
I strongly object your observation that the movement for Telangana is 'orchestrated'. It applies to the 'agitation' which abruptly ended after the Chidambaram's statement on 23rd December. People from every walk of life in Telangana are for a separate State and expressed their desire through various forms in the current wave of movement that is sixty years old!
I am saddened to say that The Hindu's reflection on the subject is close to elitists' general opposition to questioning the 'status quo'. But the people of Telangana never accepted the unjust 'status quo' nor will they ever accept it in future. Forming a separate Telangana state is the only way out!
Not published!!
Subject: Chidambaram's 3rd statement
This is with reference to the reported 3rd statement of Union Home Minister Sri P.Chidambaram. Mr.Chidambaram in the statement announced that a Committee will be formed within a week to 'deliberate' on the Telangana issue. Though the decision of the Union government is welcome, the annoncement and the Committee that follows will be taken with a pinch of salt. Telangana has seen many Agreements, Formulas, Committees,Commissions and GOs that could do little to assuage their feeling of injustice. Even in the present instance, it was not made clear if the formation of the Committee is to clear the hurdles in the way of forming a new State or to ascertain if the demand for a new State is worth heeding to!
Not published!!
Subject: On Rahman winning Grammys
Sir,
This is my reaction on A.R.Rahman winning two Grammys at Los Angeles in 'Best Compilation Soundtrack for a Motion Picture' and 'Best Motion Picture Song' categories. After the 'Oscar win', this was only a logical next for him. Honestly, I feel there are many better songs than 'Jai Ho' composed by Rahaman. But the Background score for the movie definitely is one of his Bests. Music lovers internationally, will 'discover' what this 'Mozart of Madras' is really upto only when they go through some of his compositions for Hindi and Tamil movies.
As a 'believer', I really feel Rahman is the symbol of Indian secularism. He never forgets to acknowledge the Almighty and his Sufi 'Pirs' whenever he receives accolades for his music. In fact he showed, as many of successful Indians before him, what deep spirituality can bring out of a person. Sufism and Bhakti are two greatest assets this country has given to itself and the world. One should take this lesson from A.R. Rahman's uprecedented successes. May his tribe increase!!
http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/03/stories/2010020354630803.htm - Published on 03/02/2010
Subject: Mumbai for All
Sir,
This is in response to Siddharth Varadarajan's article 'Can the idea of India pass the Thackeray test?' and the discussion that's going on in the country. The message can't be more clear. It's time for the Indian Government to stop being a spectator to the drama, that's been enacted for so long in Maharashtra, of whose script is so debilitating for the integrity and unity of the country. The 'pernicious' ideology must be tackled both politically and legally. In this respect, it's heartening to note that, at last, even if for political stakes in UP and Bihar, RSS and BJP joined Indian National Congress in challenging the designs of Shiva Sena and Mahrashtra Navnirman Sena(MNS). On the other hand, all the provisions of the law must be made use to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens as espoused in the Constitution. The irony in this country is, these divisionist parties and individuals have a very good 'eye' for people's real botherations and devise solutions that are more dangerous than the problems themselves. The governments, media and civil society must highlight and address, whichever is applicable, the problems of the common man so as to stop these extremists exploiting their helplessness.
Not published.
Subject: Sri Krishna Committee on Telangana
Sir,
This is with reference to the Terms of Reference of Sri Krishna Committee as announced by the Union Home Ministry. Sir, People of Telangana expected that the Committee will be asked to examine the reservations, concerns, objections of the people of rest of the Andhra Pradesh in the event of formation of a separate state of Telangana.The unequivocal Decembar 9 statement of Mr.Chidambaram got diluted with a thoroughly ambiguous December 23 statement. With the Terms of Reference it is clear that the Centre once again conspiring to dissipate the movement by buying time.
Sir, Creating new states is the exclusive prerogative of the Centre. Article 3 of the constitution confers no role on the State government except for expressing it's views, which are, in any case, not binding on the Centre. If the Centre was sincere in carving out Telangana, it would have taken the views of the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema people and assured them of justice. But the Union government once again buckled under pressure from the expert lobbyists from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema! In the process, it had set a wrong precedent by asking the Committee to advise it on whether or not a separate State is to be created.
Not published.
Subject: Telangana issue
Sir,
This is with reference to the editorial 'The way forward on Telangana'. On the face of it, the Terms of Reference of Sri Krishna Committee look absolutely fine to those who are oblivious of 53 years of Telangana's travails in united Andhra Pradesh. Every effort of Telangana in getting what is rightfully theirs and what was promised was opposed and obstructed by the people of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. People's desire to stay as a separate State was not respected when Telangana merged with rest of Andhra. Even the first SRC cautioned the goverment of any such hasty merger. But Andhra lobbyists had it go their way. The All Party Accord of January 19, 1969 identified 25,000 appointments violating Gentlemen's Agreement, and ordered repatriation. Not only the repatriation, even the validity of Mulki Rules - which reserved government jobs in Telangana for the locals - were questioned. Supreme Court in 1972 held the Rules to be constitutionally valid after a prolonged legal battle. The Andhras rose again! With 'Jai Andhra' agitation they forced the Union government annul the Mulki Rules and Telangana Regional Committee by amending the Constitution.
The latest Terms of Reference is just another instance of Andhra bullying Telangana with their majority. By asking the Committee to examine the case for united Andhra Pradesh, Telangana issue was taken to pre-TRS days. The movement made every political party of significance helpless but to change its stand for a Telangana State. Pranab Mukherjee sub-Committee was formed in November 2004 to go into the issue and to build consensus.The Committee proved to be a damp squib and, at hindsight, was part of UPA's great drama of buying time. After the December 9 statement and subsequent reaffirmation in both the Houses of Parliament, the appropriate course of action would have been appointing a departmental Committee to allay the legitimate fears of people of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. But the Centre once again succumbed to lobbying of leaders of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
The fifth point in ToRs, which asks the Committee to seek 'a range of solutions' and identify the optimal solutions, clearly indicates which way the Committee is heading to! The Committee will be another item in the long list of 'instruments' - democratic, legal and political - to trample the genuine aspirations of Telangana. You can't select Sachin Tendulkar to Indian foot ball team and expect him to win the match for you! Telangana issue reached a point of no return! Hope better sense prevails on the Centre.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/18/stories/2010021858601500.htm
Subject: Sachin meets Saraswat
Sir,
This is with reference to the article 'Sachin meets Saraswathi' published in 'The Hindu' on 6th April, 2010. It is no secret that Sachin Tendulkar is the most followed sportsperson in India, if not the world! But the admiration of Ms. Saraswathi Vaidyanthan for Sachin definitely stands out. Over a period of 20 years Sachin ougrew the sport which brought him the fame. He's not merely a winner of matches but also a winner of hearts. Whereever he goes, he brings with him that simplicity, which is almost indefeatable as his blade before the stumps. People like me, in millions, lived life in all its possible manifestations as we watched Sachin play - ecstacy to embarrassment, rejoice to renunciation and every feeling in between. Now we reached that state of equanimity and a win or loss does not really bother us! We just watch Sachin play. We take anything that comes from his bat. After all, we love life howsoever painful it is at times!
Not published.
Subject: APPSC Group - I controversy
Sir,
The raging controversy surrounding the APPSC Group I Preliminary Examination could have been easily avoided, had the Government of Andhra Pradesh acted swiftly and with purpose. However they let the problem take an ugly shape. Add to it, APPSC is stubbornly going ahead with its plan to conduct the exam on 5th September resulting in total chaos in the minds of aspirants not to speak of the potential break down of law and order situation in the State.
With the APPSC stands exposed with information obtained through RTI it lost its credibility in the eyes of asptirants from Telangana. On the otherhand, there is no way the State government can give 42% reservation to Telangana, except through a constitutional amendment at the Centre. Therefore, the appropriate action would be to take the help of UPSC. This should satisfy the demands of both Telangana and rest of AP. This provision is there in the Constitution under Article 315(4) which reads -- The Public Service Commission for the Union, if requested so to do by the Governor of a State, may,with the approval of the President, agree to serve all or any of the needs of the State.
Not published.
Subject: Ayodhya judgement
Sir,
This is with reference to the Allahabad High Court's judgment on the protracted dispute over the title of a piece of land in Ayodhya and 'The Hindu's coverage in today's newspaper. The editorial and the 'News Analysis' of Siddharth Varadarajan made an interesting reading. While Mr. Siddharth and other eminent lawyers, historians and archaeologists cautioned over the consequences of the 'overreach' of the judiciary in pronouncing a judgment on a vexatious issue based on 'faith' and 'belief', others saw it as an 'outreach' to put an end to bloody past. However, even if one accepts this 'Panchayati' justice, its implementation seems highly unlikely to me given the initial response from the sangh parivar and some Muslim leaders. While welcoming the judgment many of parivar's outspoken personalities displayed veiled restraint. But the underlying jubilation is hard to miss. The talk of 'Bhavya Mandir' is conspicuously silent on the question of a prospective mosque in the 1/3rd land the Muslims are now entitled to. This was a clear euphemism to outright majoritarianism when one of them advised Muslims to pave the way for a national integration by showing their 'magnanimity' and 'broadmindedness' by relinquishing claim over the land it got. On the otherhand, some of the Muslims chose to call it a 'surrender' if they accept to share the disputed land with the Hindus.
Under the circumstances, leaving the matter to the Apex court is the only left over option. This gives a chance to correct the overreach of the High Court and the interregnum can definitley utilised to outreach the aggrieved parties. If a reconciliation could not be achieved outside the court, at least the delay will have subsided the steam around this contentious issue. The exemplary response of the general public to the judgment is a case in point.
Not published.
Subject: India's sensational win at Mohali
Sir,
This is with reference to India's sensational win in the first of the two-Test series against Australia played at Mohali. Another Very Very Special innings from Laxman saw India through to a historic win which looked like an herculean task once Dhoni was run out. Ably aided by rookie Ishant Sharma, Laxman brought all his experience into play and showed to the world why he's feared so much by the best in the business - the Aussies. Though Laxman proved his mettle time and agian in winning matches from the jaws of defeat, he remained an underrated cricketer. But today, Indian cricket acknowledges the contribution of this wristy batsman more than it did before.
Also, this match showcases the true pleasure of watching an intensely fought Test cricket, where the fortunes of each team changing every session. Kudos to both the teams for the feast they treated millions of cricket fans to! I am reminded of Nirmal Shekar's comment in a column: "If Test cricket was decked up in an Armani three-piece suit and the 50-overs game was cricket in jeans and T-shirt, then T20 is the sport presented in its underwear."
Not published.
Subject: Telangana issue
Sir,
This is with reference to the Op-Ed article "One poeple, many aspirations" by S. Nagesh Kumar. The article tried, albeit vainly, to balance the contentions from both Telangana and Andhra regions. For the last 60 years, the aspirations of the people of Telangana have never been heeded or honoured by the union and State governments. Any just measure - political, executive or judicial - to the benefit of the region is either diluted, implemented in deviation or simply shelved through political machinations, deceptive administrative interpretations or through the use of brute force. Starting from the heroic peasant uprising against feudalism and autocratic Nizam rule, Telangana wanted a new lease of life through self-rule. This was confirmed when the first SRC in conclusion advised the Union government to constitute Telangana as a separate State at least for the next 6 years as the opinion of the people there was yet to crystallize in favour of Vishalandhra. Also, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao - considered by many as a proponent of Vishalandhra - wrote to U.N.Dhebar, the then President of INC, informing him of the mood of Telangana people against the merger. Despite, the merger took place. When people of Telangana demanded strict implementation of Safeguards guaranteed under Gentlemen's Agreement, they got a bombshell in the form of Six Point Formula. The Supreme Court verdict upholding the Mulki Rules was nullified by amending the constitution. SPF abolished Mulki Rules, Telangana Regional Committee - instruments that guaranteed equity. Even this lopsided formula was never implemented in its spirit. The Presidential Orders of 1975 and the subsequent G.O.No.610 failed to curtail the illegal usurping of jobs that rightfully belonged to Telangana by the Andhras. The highhandedness of Andhra bureacracy was revealed when they refused to cooperate with the Girglani Comission. Girglani's report too gathered dust as many before. And post December 9, 2009 Statement from the Government of India, Andhras are again at it. But people of Telangana are not ready to relent this time. Only a role reversal can solve this issue for ever. Statehood to Telanganites and Safeguards to Andhras.
Not published.
Subject: Srikrishna Committee report
Sir,
This is with reference to the article "What the Srikrishna Commitee says on Telangana" and the editorial "A sagacious prescription" published in your newspaper on 7th January, 2011. The Committee presented 6 options to the Government of India of which first 4 were considered "the least favoured", "not practicable", "not acceptable to all the regions" and "difficult to reach political consensus". Of the remaining 2 options, one advocated the creation of Telangana State with Hyderabad as its capital and the other favoured united Andhra Pradesh with constitutional / statutory safeguards to Telangana region. The sixth option - regarded by the Committee as the "best way forward" is riddled with many contradictions. It reads " The Committee is of the considered view that the momentum for a separate Telangana started picked up from the time the decisions incorporated in the Gentlemen's Agreement were not implemented. With the constitution of the proposed statutory council, these grievances would be taken care of." Telangana Regional Committee - with more or less the same mandate as the SKC-suggested Telangana Regional Council - was one of the safeguards espoused in the Gentlemen's Agreement. The Committee was constituted by the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 and was repealed after the 'Jai Andhra' agitation through 32nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1973. For the 13 years it was in force, it was observed only in violation. The TRC annual reports stand testimony to this. So this option was also exhausted and the Committee's opinion that "firm political and administrative management" will be to the satisfaction of maximum number of people is only naive idealism. If the Committee, with extensive work for almost an year, ends up "reinventing the wheel" of Telangna Regional Council, one can safely conclude that bifurcation of the State is the only way forward. Statehood to Telangana and Safeguards to the Seemandhra will only solve the issue permanently.
Not published.
