Differing with the view of ministers and Congress seniors from Telangana who had endorsed the Congress Working Committee’s decision to make Hyderabad joint capital of both states for a period of 10 years, the party MLCs from the region have advocated for keeping the city as joint capital only for a limited period of three to five years.
They also opposed the proposal of keeping the administration of law and order in Hyderabad with the Centre for the period during which the city will be the common capital, saying, “Governance in Hyderabad would become impossible if the city is placed under any dual control of the state and the Centre in any of the executive functions such as law and order, urban and land administration.”
Hence, the MLCs suggested setting up of a security board, if necessary, comprising chief secretaries and DGPs of the both the states along with representatives of the Central government to oversee the functional efficiency of the police force in both states.
The 16 Congress MLCs from the region under the leadership of KR Amose, P Sudhakar Reddy and K Yadava Reddy on Friday released the 14-page memorandum which they had sent to the Group of Ministers.
The MLCs demanded allocation of more surplus waters in the river Krishna to Telangana. “In view of the dangerous effects of Polavaram project on Telangana tribal population, we are of the view that the project be redesigned,” they said.
Apart from requesting the GoM to recommend the Centre to amend the Article 371 (D) suitably, they also wanted continuation of Legislative Council in Telangana state after bifurcation.
The following are the views of the Congress MLCs on the capital of Seemandhra:
The idea of keeping the temporary capital of residuary AP in Hyderabad is unviable as Seemandhra districts are faraway from the city. Hence, it is better to limit the duration of keeping the capital of residuary AP in Hyderabad to 3 to 5 years only. The residuary state of AP should identify the location of its capital within one year and start immediately building the capital to reduce the travelling distances.
The term Hyderabad city or Hyderabad should be limited to the revenue district of Hyderabad and not to any other larger entity such as GHMC or HMDA when the city acts as joint capital.
A common capital poses administrative inconvenience to governments of both states and their employees as well as citizens.
According to the Congress MLCs, the options for the capital of residuary state of AP are multiple and there are many political and economic pulls and pressures from its regions. “This may delay the process of locating the capital beyond one year and, if that happens, we request the Centre to intervene. When a similar situation occurred in 1953 over the shift of Andhra State government from Madras, the then Centre appointed a committee headed by Justice Wanchoo to recommend ways to manage the transition,” they said.
They claimed, that in its report Justice Wanchoo suggested that certain essential parts of Andhra government such as administrative blocks including Governor, Assembly and secretariat be shifted to Visakhapatnam.
Hence, they have felt that this suggestion is valid even now as Visakhapatnam is second only to Hyderabad. “Main governance institutions of residuary AP should be moved to Visakhapatnam at once to allay the fears of people of Telangana that the government of residuary AP will continue to reside in Hyderabad city for ten years or even longer on the excuse that they have not identified or built their capital,” they suggested.
Transition Committee
“A transition committee may be set up with chief ministers, chief secretaries, DGPs of both States along with Central representatives to oversee the transition till the government of residuary state of AP is shifted to its own capital,” the MLCs said.
Source: The New Indian Express