Ramanisblog

Tag: Member of Parliament

  • Why Less Muslims In Lok Sabha-Owaisi The Answer

     

    “The representation of Muslims in this Lok Sabha will be the lowest since the first general election of 1952. The 16th Lok Sabha will have just 24 Muslim MPs, down from 30 in the 15th. That translates to 4.4% of the strength of the House. 



    Muslims constituted 4.3% of the first Lok Sabha in 1952, but their proportion has hovered between five and six per cent for the last quarter of a century after dropping from a high of 9.3% or 49 members in the LS elected in the 1980 elections. 



    The incoming House will have no Muslim MPs from Uttar Pradesh, a first. It will also not have any from Maharashtra, a large state with a substantial Muslim population. The only states to have elected MPs from the community are West Bengal (eight), Jammu & Kashmir (four), Bihar (four), Kerala (three), Assam (two) and Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Lakshadweep (one each). Of these, of course J&K as well as Lakshadweep have Muslim-majority populations.(Zee News)

     

    On the day the Indian Elections 2014 results were being announced,  Asauddin Owisi, wagging a Finger at Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN IBN, the English

     

    News Channel, said belligerently,

     

    Vladimir Putin To Muslims.image.jpg.
    Vladimir Putin To Muslims.

     

     

     

    ‘Now tell Me, why there are fewer MPS in Lok Sabha, why there is no Muslim has been elected in the BJP?

     

     

     

    You Media do Modi Namaskar daily,

     

     

    Tell Me why Muslims have also voted and made Hindus MP?”,

     

     

    Owaisi the answer is three simple numerical,

     

     

     

    9/11

     

    September 2001 Twin Tower Attack.

     

     

    And a host of Bombings.

     

     

    And Seven Letters of English

     

    Al Qaeda.

     

     

    You do not threaten people into electing specific people

     

     

    At this rate you might ask for Minority Reservations in election Results!

     

    Why Hindus  were elected as MPs by Muslims

     

    They are not Terrorists, notwithstanding Religion.

     

    Have you ever watched your speeches on TV?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    How many Indian Presidents/Prime Ministers Pakistan has/had?

     

     

    How many Hindu/Non Muslim Cricket Players are there in Pakistan cricket team?

     

     

    How many Muslim Nations allow the Hindu law to embolden you to ask for Sharia law in India?

     

     

    How many temples have you looted?

     

     

    At least be grateful.

     

     

    If you do not want to be an Indian, you are free.

     

    Yo do nt get along with Christians, Jews, and even one sect of yours kills the members of the other sect .

     

    With whom shall be you be getting along?

     

    Let the decent Muslims live in India in peace.

     

     

     

    Best reply for your ilk is by Vladimir Putin, which I have posted in this post.

     

     

     

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • MPs To Lobby For Non Existent Firm For Bribes

    Cutting across party lines MPs of India have agreed to lobby for a non-existent Australian firm for bribes.

    This was revealed in a sting operation by CobraPost.

    Lobby for Bribe.
    MPs Accept Money for Lobbying

    Scroll down for  more Video.

    Investigative website Cobrapost has exposed 11 MPs who were willing to write letters of recommendation for a fictitious foreign oil major for money.

    The investigation, panning over a year, exposes MPs from Congress, BJP, BSP, JD(U) and AIADMK willing to issue letters of recommendation to promote a fictitious Australian oil exploration company in exchange for fees ranging between Rs 50,000 to Rs 50 lakh. Six of these MPs even wrote the letters for a fee.

    Code-named ‘Operation Falcon Claw’, Cobrapost expose claims that the MPs were willing to not only write recommendation letters but also lobby with the Union ministry of petroleum to help the company secure oil exploration and rigging rights in the northeast.

    However, none of these 11 MPs bothered to check the antecedents of the company or check if the company was real, Cobrapost claimed. What they hankered after was money, quoting as low as Rs 50,000 to a mind-boggling Rs 50 lakh as the price for a letter of recommendation, delivered all in cash. One MP even demanded that his fee be delivered through a hawala operator. Six MPs issued letters of recommendation to Cobrapost.

    The parliamentarians who were exposed are K Sugumar and C Rajendran from AIADMK; Lalu Bhai Patel, Ravindra Kumar Pandey and Hari Manjhi from BJP; Vishwa Mohan Kumar, Maheshwar Hazari and Bhudeo Chaudhary from JD(U); Khiladi Lal Bairwa and Vikrambhai Arjanbhai from Congress; and Kaiser Jahan from BSP.

    The MPs.

    1.      Khiladi Lal Bairwa, Congress
    2.      Vikrambhai Arjanbhai, Congress
    3.      Lalu Bhai Patel, BJP
    4.      Ravindra Kumar Pandey, BJP
    5.      Hari Manjhi, BJP;
    6.      K Sugumar, AIADMK
    7.      C Rajendran, AIADMK
    8.      Vishwa Mohan Kumar, JD-U
    9.      Maheshwar Hazari, JD-U
    10.  Bhudeo Chaudhary, JD-U
    11.  Kaiser Jahan of the BSP

    Four of these MPs are from Bihar. Three are from JD-U and one is from BJP.  Bhudeo Chaudhary from Jamui, Vishwa Mohan Kumar from Supaul and Maheshwar Hazari from Samastipur are from JDU. The fourth one is Hari Manjhi from Gaya is from BJP.

    Earlier, in another sting operation code named Operation Duryodhana in 2005, Cobrapost captured 11MPsaccepting money to raise questions in Parliament. All the members were expelled from the Parliament. Ten of them belonged to Lok Sabha and one was from Rajya Sabha. The eleven members involved in the previous operation were:
    1.         Narendra Kushwaha (BSP) – Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
    2.         Annasaheb M. K. Patil (BJP) – Erandol, Maharashtra
    3.         Chhatrapal Singh Lodha (BJP) – Odisha (Rajya Sabha)
    4.         Y. G. Mahajan (BJP) – Jalgaon, Maharashtra
    5.         Manoj Kumar (Rashtriya Janata Dal) – Palamau, Jharkand
    6.         Suresh Chandel (BJP) – Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh
    7.         Raja Ram Pal (BSP) – Bilhaur, Uttar Pradesh
    8.         Lal Chandra Kol (BJP) – Robertsganj, Uttar Pradesh
    9.         Pradeep Gandhi (BJP) – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
    10.       Chandra Pratap Singh (BJP) – Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh
    11.       Ramsevak Singh (Congress) – Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

    Source:
    The times of India dated 12 December 2013
    Related Articles

  • Lokpal Bill Pros and Cons.

    The Lokpal Bill might have power concentrated on a single institution which is not healthy for a Democracy.

    Lokpal shall have powers to direct the Judiciary .

    This will compromise the independence of Judiciary.

    Even if this proposal were to be accepted, many Constitutional amendments have to be made..

    These points have to be taken note of.

    The LokThe word Lokpal means an ombudsman in India. The word hs been derived from the Hindi words “lok” (people) and “pal” (protector/caretaker). So the word Lokpal means ‘Protector of people’.The concept of Lokpal has been drawn up ostensibly to root out corruption at high places in the prevailing Indian polity.

    Lokpal Bill

    After 42 years the lokpal bill is still pending in India. The first Lokpal Bill was passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969 but could not get through in Rajya Sabha, subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never passed and its pending. [1][2]

    The Lokpal Bill provides for filing complaints of corruption against the prime minister, other ministers, and MPs with the ombudsman. The Administrative Reforms Commission(ARC) while recommending the constitution of Lokpal was convinced that such an institution was justified not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of adversely affected citizens but also necessary to instill public confidence in the efficiency of administrative machinery. Following this, the Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.

    However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, resulting the first death of the bill. The bill was revived in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements – a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry – and before the government could take a final stand on the issue the house was dissolved.

    Several flaws have been cited in the recent draft of the Lokpal Bill. [3] Meanwhile the activists of India Against Corruption (IAC) have prepared a draft for the bill called Jan Lokpal Bill.

    History

    The basic idea of the Lok Pal is borrowed from the office of ombudsman, which has played an effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing in Scandinavian and other nations.In early 1960s, mounting corruption in public administration set the winds blowing in favour of an Ombudsman in India too. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) set up in 1966 recommended the constitution of a two-tier machinery – of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukt(a)s in the states.

    Duties

    Prime Minister or a House of Parliament — to whom a Lokpal sends its report holds that the allegations of corruption made in a complaint against the Prime Minister, or a Minister or MP (present or past) have not been proved, “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law”, “no prosecution shall lie on any complaint, report, information or otherwise and no court shall take cognisance of any offence on the basis of the same or substantially the same allegations.”

    The Lokpal is empowered to give directions for deferring or suspending any ongoing police investigations in matters covered by the complaints made to it.

    There are many more gems of justice that deserve attention. Contradictory to the government’s claim that the Lokpal would provide the common man with exemplary powers to censure his/her elected representative, every complainant, the government’s ‘common man’, has to pay a fees and take full responsibility for leveling charges and in case the complaint is found to be baseless, to discourage the same ‘common man’, serious punitive action extending to two years in jail and Rs.50,000 in fine will be imposed on the complainant.

    Charges of corruption in the Indian legal system are not necessarily covered only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but also under many other Acts, but the Lokpal restricts its ambit to the cases under this Act.

    Regarding the constitution of the Lokpal, the Chairman of the Lokpal shall be from among past or present chief justices of Supreme Court. But the other two members of the Lokpal may also be from those qualified to be judges of the Supreme Court. The loose end left here makes countless many from India’s entire judiciary eligible for the post including those who are also senior party politicians with legal background.

    Lokpal is highest institution in India to investigate corruption at higher places in Government. Creation of Lokpal institution is under process. Many previous attempt were unsuccessful due to lack of political support.

    This institution will cover all government ministers, officers at centre including Prime Minister (Under Debate).

    Differences between Draft Lokpal Bill 2010 and Jan Lokpal Bill

    Draft Lokpal Bill (2010) Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen’s ombudsman Bill)
    Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by LS Speaker or RS Chairman. Lokpal will have powers to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public.
    Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body. Its part is only limited to forwarding its report to the “Competent Authority” Lokpal will be much more than an Advisory Body. It should be granted powers to initiate Prosecution against anyone found guilty.
    Lokpal will not have any police powers. It can not register FIRs or proceed with criminal investigations. Lokpal will have police powers. To say that it will be able to register FIRs.
    CBI and Lokpal will have no connection with each other. Lokpal and anti corruption wing of CBI will be one Independent body.
    Punishment for corruption will be minimum 6 months and maximum up-to 7 years. The punishment should be minimum 5 years and maximum up-to life imprisonment.
    Lokpal will not be a monopoly for particular area 

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal

    Related.

    The existing Lokpal Bill proposed by the government is quite toothless and has glaring loopholes which make the whole anti-corruption exercise a sham exercise.The whole selection process,powers and member of Lokpal give rise to vested interests and would make it a fruitless bill.The deficiencies of the government version of the Lokpal are

    a) Selection of 3 retired judges by the ruling government only to the Lokpal Panel.Gives rise to vested interests,Jan Lokpal advocates selection of any eminent citizen who has fought against corruption.Selection will be made by government,civil society members and judiciary.

    b) Bureaucrats outside the purview of the Lokpal Bill,Speaker Power.This is a huge loophole as government bureaucrats have been found to be ringleaders in most corruption scams taking place in the country.The recent CVC case where PJ Thomas was implicated and Supreme Court had to force the government to remove him

    c) No Sou Moto Recognition of Legal Cases – Complaints against the Legislature Members can only be made to the Speaker of Parliament who can decide.This makes no sense as Speakers in India have sullied their image with repeated partisanship to their party.Independent and impartial speakers in Indian parliaments are hard to find.Jan Lokpal can take Sou Moto cases

    d) No Defence or Foreign Matter Jurisdiction – Again most of the large scams have taken place in Defence Deals.This has happened under the rule of both the main political parties.Bofors,HDW Submarine are some of the bigger Defence Scandals.Lokpal will have no authority to investigate these.The Jan Lokpal version allows investigations into such cases.Exceptions are only allowed in existing cases before judiciary or currently held legislation.It also imposes strict jail terms for corruption cases.

    The Jan Lokpal Bill has the power to transform Indian state and system and have a major impact on transperency like the RTI Bill.However there are extremely powerful interests opposing this Bill..Hazare alleges the 9 member group of ministers who drafted the proposed draft bill are the most corrupt ministers.A lot of support and pressure is needed from the civil society and citizens to get this to move forward.

    http://greenworldinvestor.com/2011/04/05/what-is-jan-lokpal-bill-and-how-it-plugs-the-giant-loopholes-in-government-version-lokpal-bill/

    Taking note of the swelling support for the Anna Hazare-led campaign for a tougher Jan Lokpal Bill, the UPA government on Friday agreed to issue an order for setting up a committee comprising civil society and elected representatives to draft the law.

    Anna HazareThe decision was taken after the government brass met Congress President Sonia Gandhi in the evening.

    Hazare said he would end his fast at 10 am tomorrow, when the government was expected to issue an order for the formation of the committee. 

    http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/govt-accepts-demands-hazare-to-end-fast/431612/

    NEW DELHI: The Congress sees as a “super” government the institution of the Lokpal as proposed in the draft Jan Lokpal Bill — it would virtually run a parallel government.

    It will be a “demi-God” with supreme powers to run the government, sources within the Congress party feel. It can seek the resignation of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and all Constitutional authorities with the kind of overarching powers that are being envisaged, the sources said.

    The Jan Lokpal Bill, proposed by the civil society group that is now spearheading the anti-corruption crusade, seeks to include the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, bureaucracy and the judiciary within its ambit. The National Advisory Council, chaired by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has favoured the draft Jan Lokpal Bill.

    http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/09/stories/2011040966411800.htm

  • Wiki Leaks exposes All Parties.Politicians Bought and sold.

    What few knew has been confirmed by Wiki Leaks.

    Government is run on money power shamelessly and the politicians brazenly talk about ‘eradicating Corruption.’

    Congress from Bofors , Shibu Soren,2G scam,ISRO,Defense Deals right upto this expose has been reveling incorruption.You can not accuse them for being corrupt.

    Where will they go for money for Shibu Sorens,Deve Gowdas,Ajith Singh &Co.

    BJP is not pristine pure either.

    How was it that Gadkari’s benami  has been allotted a flat in Adarsh Society?

    What is Ranjan Bhattachraya  doing with Niira Radia?

    What about Promod Mahajan?

    Deve Gowda/Ajith Singh etc will go in for money.

    Not Karunanidhi.

    He knows he can reap more in Telecoms and even offer an incentive to Congress.

    ‘Politics is the last Refuge of a Scoundrel’-never has been truer.

    * itlalics in the article are my comments.

    NEW DELHI 00001972 002 OF 004

    4. (SBU) The special session of parliament to consider the confidence vote will begin on July 21 and conclude with a vote on July 22. Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Vayalar Ravi claimed on July 15 that the government would prevail in the July 22 confidence vote with over 280 votes cast in its favor. Kuldip Bishnoi, an estranged Congress Party MP who had been suspended for floating the idea of forming his own party in December 2007, confirmed his intention to defect in the confidence vote. (This development was apparently expected by party insiders and not a leading indicator of further fragmentation within the party.) Consulate Chennai reported on July 17 that the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has publicly stated it will vote against the UPA. One of its three members of parliament has broken from the party, but is unlikely to support the government because the TRS has positioned the trust vote as a statehood issue, so voting for the UPA would mean voting against Telangana interests.

    TRS would go against the Government ,not because of Nuclear issue per se, but because of its ‘position on Telengana’ Strange Logic of Patriotism!

    ” It also claimed that PM Singh was upset with the BJP for allegedly recanting on an “”understanding”” that it would support the deal. The article concludes that if the government survives the July 22 vote, PM Singh’s priority would be to implement flagship social programs to thank his party for rallying behind him.

    BJP had an ‘understanding’-and recanted What was the understanding and why was it recanted?

    Votes For Sale – – –

    8. (SBU) Behind the scenes, the Congress Party machine is working overtime. Sonia Gandhi reportedly plans to meet Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Shibu Soren and Janata Dal Secular (JD-S) leader H.D. Deve Gowda. Retaining the support of JMM’s five seats and the JD-S’s three seats is reportedly vital to the UPA government’s strategy. In exchange for retaining the support of the three votes of the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), the Congress Party has reportedly pledged its support to rename Lucknow’s Amausi airport after Chaudhary Charan Singh, father of RLD leader Ajit Charan Singh, who may also get a cabinet seat.

    Sonia Gandhi, and Rahul Gandhi were committed to the nuclear initiative and had conveyed this message clearly to the party. Sharma said that PM Singh and others were trying to work on the Akali Dal (8 votes) through financier Sant Chatwal and others, but unfortunately it did not work out.
    Going through a Financier?’
    ‘It did not work out’ Amount not sufficient?
    10. (S) Sharma’s political aide Nachiketa Kapur mentioned to an Embassy staff member in an aside on July 16 that Ajit Singh’s RLD had been paid Rupees 10 crore (about $2.5 million) for each of their four MPs to support the government. Kapur mentioned that money was not an issue at all, but the crucial thing was to ensure that those who took the money would vote for the government. Kapur showed the Embassy employee two chests containing cash and said that around Rupees 50-60 crore (about $25 million) was lying around the house for use as pay-offs. 

    11. (S) Another Congress Party insider told PolCouns that Minister of Commerce and Industry Kamal Nath is also helping to spread largesse. “”Formerly he could only offer small planes as bribes,”” according to this interlocutor, now he can pay for votes with jets.””

    “”What If””s: No Vote or a UPA Defeat

    Satish Sharma cannily declared in Press meet that’Nachiketa has never been my aide’
    He did not say he does not know him.
    Related:

    NEW DELHI: Five days before the Manmohan Singh government faced a crucial vote of confidence on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in 2008, a political aide to Congress leader Satish Sharma showed a U.S. Embassy employee “two chests containing cash” he said was part of a bigger fund of Rs. 50 crore to Rs. 60 crore that the party had assembled to purchase the support of MPs. The aide also claimed the four MPs belonging to Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal had already been paid Rs. 10 crore each to ensure they voted the right way on the floor of the Lok Sabha.

    In a cable, dated July 17, 2008, sent to the State Department ( 162458: secret), accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks, U.S. Charge d’Affaires Steven White wrote about a visit the Embassy’s Political Counselor paid to Satish Sharma, who is described as “a Congress Party MP in the Rajya Sabha … and a close associate of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi considered to be a very close family friend of Sonia Gandhi.”

    Mr. Sharma told the U.S. diplomat that he and others in the party were working hard to ensure the government won the confidence vote on July 22. After describing the approaches the Congress leader said had been made to the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Akali Dal, Mr. White drops a bombshell of a revelation:

    “Sharma’s political aide Nachiketa Kapur mentioned to an Embassy staff member in an aside on July 16 that Ajit Singh’s RLD had been paid Rupees 10 crore (about $2.5 million) for each of their four MPs to support the government. Kapur mentioned that money was not an issue at all, but the crucial thing was to ensure that those who took the money would vote for the government.”

    Lest this should be construed by the visiting diplomats as an empty boast, Mr. Sharma’s aide put his money where his mouth was: “Kapur showed the Embassy employee two chests containing cash and said that around Rupees 50-60 crore (about $25 million) was lying around the house for use as pay-offs.”

    Independently, Mr. Sharma told the Political Counselor “that PM Singh and others were trying to work on the Akali Dal (8 votes) through financier Sant Chatwal and others, but unfortunately it did not work out.” He said “the Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi, and Rahul Gandhi were committed to the nuclear initiative and had conveyed this message clearly to the party.” Efforts were also on to try and get the Shiv Sena to abstain. Further, “Sharma mentioned that he was also exploring the possibility of trying to get former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya to speak to BJP representatives to try to divide the BJP ranks.”

    The cable makes it clear the Congress campaign to buy votes was not confined to the cash-filled war chests that Nachiketa Kapur and Satish Sharma had gathered.

    “Another Congress Party insider told PolCouns that Minister of Commerce and Industry Kamal Nath is also helping to spread largesse. ‘Formerly he could only offer small planes as bribes,’” according to this interlocutor, ‘now he can pay for votes with jets.’”

    Despite these efforts, the U.S. Embassy concluded that the UPA maintained only a “precarious lead” in the forthcoming confidence vote. “Our best guess at this time show the government maintaining its slim majority with the anticipated vote count at about 273 in favor, 251 opposed, and 19 abstentions.”

    The prediction was impressively close to the mark. Prime Minister Singh got 275 votes in favour with 256 against and 10 abstentions.

    Just before the vote, the BJP produced cash on the floor of the House and alleged that this was the money the government had used to try and buy the support of MPs. But subsequent investigations ran aground. The secret U.S. Embassy cable, however, is likely to reignite Opposition allegations that bribery was resorted to on a massive scale to ensure the UPA won the 2008 vote of confidence.

    The fact that Congress politicians could speak so freely to American diplomats about their bribing spree during the run up to the confidence vote — and that the latter could be so blasé about the subversion of democracy — underlines the all-encompassing but ultimately corrosive nature of the “strategic partnership” the two governments were trying to build.

    As for Mr. Kapur, his candid display of crores of rupees to be used by the Congress as “pay offs” for the trust vote was not seen by the U.S. Embassy as compromising his democratic credentials in any way. In November 2008, he was sent to the U.S. under the State Department’s I-Vote 2008 programme as an observer for that year’s presidential election. “The move to invite international observers”, he wrote in a blog post, “reflects the open and democratic nature of the American society.”

    http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/17/stories/2011031758500100.htm

  • SriKrishna Committee On Telengana-Time to firm.

    Nothing new has been said in the report.

    Discussion on this subject shall lead to nowhere.

    Telengana people are.rather the politicians have made up their mind and are misleading the people..A mistake was committed earlier in forming linguistic states.Andhra blackmailed and got it,despite Sardar Patel’s objection.

    We are paying for it.

    Time to be firm with unified Andhra Pradesh.

    It should also be mandated to provide fixed percentage of budget for Telengana, Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra.

    This function may be transferred to Central List( only the %  of allocation);

    monitoring by CAG

    Story:

    Jan 6: This was just the sort of reaction that the government feared as an aftermath of the Srikrishna Committee report being made public. The nerve centre of the Telangana agitation, the Osmania University has erupted in protests in response to the recommendations given out by the report.

     

    The pro-Telangana protestors engaged in stone pelting and caused bodily harm to police personnel stationed there. The protestors have called for a bandh on Friday in protest. The students turned violent and has burned a city bus making the climate in Hyderabad volatile and sensitive.

     

    The reactions from various parties can be termed “mixed” with the Telugu Rashtra Samithi (TRS) threatening to go on fast soon. The TRS and the BJP has rejected the proposals of the committee outright and said that they still root for a separate Telangana state. The TRS also suggested that a bill be introduced in the Budget session of Parliament even at thecost of a mass-fasting by Congress MLAs and MPs who supports the existence of a separate Telangana state.

    One of the first party to come out with opinion on the report was the Praja Rajyam Party that welcomed the recommendation for a United Andhra. The TDP leaders came out with varied reactions and said that it was up to the Centre to come out with a feasible solution rather than “plying with people’s sentiments.”

    http://news.oneindia.in/2011/01/06/osmania-university-turns-violent-telangana-report.html

    Related:

    SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF COMMITTEE FOR CONSULTATION ON THE SITUATION IN ANDHRA PRADESH

     

    1.      Shri Justice B. N. Srikrishna report was submitted to the Government on 30.12.2010.  The Terms of Reference of the Committee are enclosed.
    2.      In its 461 pages Report (along with Volume II containing Appendices), the Committee has examined in great detail the following issues:
    (i)                 Developments in Andhra Pradesh – A Historical Background
    (ii)               Regional Economic and Equity Analysis
    (iii)             Education and Health
    (iv)              Water Resources, irrigation and Power Development
    (v)                Public Employment Issues
    (vi)              Issues Relating to Hyderabad Metropolis
    (vii)            Sociological and Cultural Issues
    3.      Based on the analysis of the above parameters the Committee has examined in detail the issues pertaining to current demand for a separate State of Telangana as well as the demand for maintaining the present status of keeping the State united.  After going into all aspects of the situation as well as keeping in view the local, regional and the national perspectives, the Committee has put forward the following solutions/possible options as the best way forward:
    (i) Maintaining Status Quo
    The Committee is of the unanimous view that it would not be a practical approach to simply maintain the status quo in respect of the situation.  Some intervention is definitely required and though maintaining the existing status quo is an option, it is favoured the least.
    (ii) Bifurcation of the State into Seemandhra and Telangana; with Hyderabad as a Union Territory and the two States developing their own capitals in due course
    There is a definite likelihood of serious backlashes in the Telangana region and an overall consideration the Committee found this option was also not practicable.
    (iii) Bifurcation of State into Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions with Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telangana
    This scenario is not likely to be accepted either by the pro-Telangana or by the pro-united Andhra protagonists.  While this option may have economic justification, the Committee believes that this option may not offer a resolution which would be acceptable to people of all three regions.
    (iv) Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with enlarged Hyderabad Metropolis as a separate Union Territory.  This Union Territory will have geographical linkage and contiguity via Nalgonda district in the south-east to district Guntur in coastal Andhra and via Mahboobnagar district in the south to Kurnool district in Rayalaseema
    This is likely to receive stiff opposition from Telangana protagonists and it may be difficult to reach a political consensus in making this solution acceptable to all.
    (v) Bifurcation of the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per existing boundaries with Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra to have a new capital
    The Committee feels that this option has to be given consideration.  The continuing demand for a separate Telangana has some merit and is not entirely unjustified.  In case this option is exercised the apprehensions of the coastal Andhra and the Rayalaseema people and others who were settled in Hyderabad and other districts of Telangana with regard to their investments, properties, livelihood and employment would need to be adequately addressed.  Considering all aspects, the Committee felt that while creation of separate Telangana would satisfy a large majority of people from the region, it will also throw up several other serious problems.  Therefore after taking into account of the pros and cons the Committee did not think it to be the most preferred, but the second best option.  Separation is recommended only in case it is unavoidable and if this decision can be reached amicably amongst all the three regions.
    (vi) Keeping the State united by simultaneously providing certain definite Constitutional / Statutory measures for socio-economic development and political empowerment of Telangana region – creation of a statutorily empowered Telangana Regional Council
    In this option it is proposed to keep the State united and provide Constitutional / Statutory measures to address the core socio-economic concerns about the development of the Telangana region.  This can be done through the establishment of a statutory and empowered Telangana Regional Council with adequate transfer of funds, functions and functionaries.  The Regional Council would provide a legislative consultative mechanism for the subjects to be dealt with by the Council.
    The united Andhra option is being suggested for continuing the development momentum of the three regions and keeping in mind the national perspective.  With firm political and administrative management it should be possible to convey conviction to the people that this option would be in the best interest to all and would provide satisfaction to the maximum number of people in the State.  It would also take care of the uncertainty over the future of Hyderabad as a bustling educational, industrial and IT hub/destination.  For management of water and irrigation resources on an equitable basis, a technical body, i.e. Water Management Board and an Irrigation Project Development Corporation in expanded role have been recommended.  The above course of action should meet all the issues raised by Telangana people satisfactorily.
    The Committee discussed all aspects of this option and while it acknowledges that there will be certain difficulties in its implementation, on balance, it found it the most workable option in the given circumstances and in the best interest of the social and economic welfare of the people of all the three regions.  The core issue being one of the socio-economic development and good governance, the Committee, keeping the national perspective in mind, is of the considered view that this option stands out as the best way forward.