సమైక్యాంధ్ర పై ఇందిరాగాంధీ

పార్లమెంట్లో ముల్కి రూల్స్ విషయమై 1972 లో జరిగిన చర్చకు సమాధానమిస్తూ అప్పటి భారత ప్రధాని శ్రీమతి ఇందిరా గాంధీ: 

EXCERPTS FROM LOK SABHA DEBATES ON MULKI RULES - 

DECEMBER 21, 1972- PRIME MINISTER INDIRA GANDHI’S REPLY

 

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is really not much need for me to speak as my colleague, Shri Chavan, has brought a cooler and calmer atmosphere to prevail in the House and has dealt with the really important points. But some hon. Ministers even of the Opposition had earlier expressed the opinion that it might be misunderstood if I did not clearly state our views on some points which have been mentioned here before. They are not new, nevertheless, they thought I should do so and that is why I have got up.

Parliament discusses many important issues which are highly emotional, and the Mulki Rules have become one such issue. Matters which involve regional feelings quite often do arouse the emotions of the people in this country as in many other countries, and we certainly cannot ignore the emotions of the people. But I should like to stress what Chavanji has said, that no solution can be found while the atmosphere remains charged with emotion. Any solutions, any answer, has to be found in a very cool, calm and rational manner.

Therefore, although I was also, as were many other hon. Members, touched by the emotions expressed by hon. Members, by the difficulties of our friends from Telengana and friends from other parts of Andhra Pradesh, we were certainly touched by the difficulties and emotions – I should very respectfully say to them that all these matters have to be thought of not in terms of emotions but in terms of calm and collective thought. And not in terms of today, or tomorrow or the day after but of what it will mean to them and the country ten years hence, 20 years hence, a hundred years hence.

Hon. Members have been discussing here, and separately with me, the question of a few posts or a few matters like this. As Chavanji very rightly said, does this really touch the lives of the people? It does not. The whole problem of  employment has assumed vast proportions for us. There is unemployment all over the country. Not only in our country but in almost every country of the world. This is one of the phenomena of contemporary society. I am not saying this to excuse our own shortcomings or difficulties. The problem has to be faced. This is why this question has assumed such vast proportions.

Naturally, if you put to the people that a particular development has affected their employment, it has affected their rights they will become emotional. I do not know how many people have gone to the public at large and said, “Let us sit down and think about it, what difference will it make in terms of employment, in terms of other opportunities for the people in the Telengana region, for the people in the other districts of Andhra Pradesh?” So, I don’t think that the issue has been fully and squarely put before all the people there. Therefore, the reaction today has to be also viewed in that light.

Now, the present debate, with all due respect to hon. Members, is not about socialism. It is not about the welfare of the country at large or many of the points which were raised, especially by the hon. Member who spoke first. This is a very limited issue; a very small issue. It deals specifically and only with the Mulki Rules, and the situation that arose because of the Supreme Court judgment. Some hon. Members said that nothing had happened. But I would respectfully say that a great deal has happened all these years. There was, if not to our entire satisfaction, certainly a degree of calm; not the calm of the  graveyard as some friends are so fond of repeating; and the situation was moving towards improvement. I am not saying that it had vastly improved. But certainly it was moving towards improvement. Then this judgment on the Mulki Rules was delivered and suddenly it was as if a fire had been started all over the State. How did the whole situation with regard to the Mulki rules arise? The State of Hyderabad was the largest of the old princely States. One hon. Member has said and rightly that in this State there were individuals, there were families of very high culture. But for the vast majority of the people there was poverty, they had not had opportunities of education or social welfare or of public health, or any kind of amelioration of their living conditions. When the composite Andhra State came into being all sections of the people recognized that for greater cohesions certain special measures of a transitory nature were necessary. The leaders of the people unanimously arrived at a gentlemen’s agreement which we all accepted.

Since Shri Joshi is here I should like to just remind him. He cut a joke, he thought all our expense, on the word “gentleman”. But in those days ‘gentleman’ was not a polite phrase at all; “gentleman” was used for a particular section of people who were completely divorced from the rest of the people. It is just like the earlier an argument over “lady” and “woman”. I had then very categorically said that we were women, bearing burdens and responsibilities as well as wanting our rights, we did not want to be “ladies” and “gentlemen” sitting on some platform above everybody else.

So, there was this agreement. Now, regardless of any agreement we all know that even within a family there are differences and disputes. There is no State in India which does not have backward areas. Relatively backward and advanced areas exist not only in all States but in different regions of the same State. In the Andhra region many Members have drawn attention to areas such as Rayalaseema and Srikakulam. The Telengana region, may be backward region but it does have better-off areas.

Merely because an area is comparatively backward is not reason enough for taking drastic or irreversible decisions. Where will this process end? I am not at all afraid of this being catching; that is not the point. But where does any one draw the line? Will each district want to be separated? Some people have advised the division of U.P. Where to divide into two, three, four, into how many areas do you divide it? Do you go back to the old, very small States, princely States, do you go back to that? Somewhere a line has to be drawn. You cannot just say that because of backwardness there should be division. As Chavanji has rightly pointed out, economic backwardness can go only through hard work and the effort of the entire nation.

While there will always be sympathy and understanding for the special hardship of the backwardness of any special group or any special area, I do not think that anyone should be allowed to develop a vested interest in backwardness.

This is really a general problem and it is a part of the very much larger problem of poverty itself. There is, I am afraid, no immediate solution to it. In the early stages of development it is always more difficult to allot resources because the general level is so low that any extra provision is extremely difficult, but in spite of this, an effort was made in the third and fourth Plans. As the House is aware, on the basis of the recommendations of the National Development Council 225 districts were earmarked for concessional finance from public financial institutions. In this are included district from the Andhra region as well from the

Telengana region.

In the Fifth Plan, it is our intention to launch a massive minimum programme. I do not want to go into the premise of this programme, some of which you know and some you will soon learn about. This is the only way in which a real solution can be found. While transitional measures may be necessary in some areas for historical or other reasons, I think we should all view the problem and the possibilities of its solution in the proper perspective.

So far as the present Bill is concerned, Shri Mirdha has already explained the scope of its provisions and I do not want to go into it again. However, I should like to make just a few general observations. As the House is aware, the Supreme Court held that section 2 of the Public Employment (requirement also residence) Act, 1957 which sought to repeal the Mulki Rules, was bad. This was a complex situation. This was not the first time. In between many things have been going on. The Mulki Rules themselves were declared invalid and so on. It is not at all a static situation. But this has created a complex situation. It is obvious that the administration could not be run on the basis that Mulki Rules would apply to posts under the State Government at all levels. Certain appointments made in the past also had to be regularized. My friend opposite was much concerned about this. He felt that it might mean going back and reinstating people. I should like to re-assure him that this is not at all the case. I do not want to go into the details of this. But I think his fears are unfounded. We had also to consider the past assurances given to the people of Telengana area with regard to public employment and also their present needs. We have not at all gone back on any assurance given and I should like to re-assure the hon. Members that we are deeply concerned with their problems. But we feel that this is not the way of solving them. In fact, as I said on an earlier occasion, merely talking of separation is not an end of the problem. It is the beginning of another very big problem not for other States but also for that area, that State itself. The decisions which we announced on the 27th November, 1972 were in the response to the request by the leaders of the State; they themselves have said that we  should do something.

Regarding this Bill, several members have suggested that we might circulate it for public opinion, send it to the Supreme Court and so on. They asked, what was the hurry? The hurry is in the immediate interests of the proper administration of the State. It is obvious that any delay would create serious complications. I stand firmly for an integrated State, but I should like to say that so far as this matter is concerned, even had there been two States, it would have made no difference to this Bill because it deals mainly with the problem of the twin cities and also the rest of Telengana. That problem would remain no matter what other things you do because a large number of non-Mulkis is there. Unfortunately, even in the speeches have some little bitterness crept in. It does not matter how many States we have, you still will be neighbours and you still will have to deal with one another in a hundred and one things. Thinking that just because you are separated, you can get rid of these people or we have got rid of this problem is a very facile way of thinking. Our experience has not shown that this comes true.

Rightly there is a strong feeling in the country that any residential qualification for public employment goes against the very concept of common citizenship which is enshrined in our Constitution. But at the same time, the framers of the Constitution did realize that the safeguards available to people who suffer from special hardships could not be abrogated straightaway. This was one of the purposes of article 35. It kept alive the Mulki Rules, which had come to be looked upon as a valuable safeguard and had generated an emotional attachment. When the Telengana area was merged with Andhra, there were assurances from the Andhra region that this safeguard would be continued in certain respects. This approach was accepted by successive Governments in Andhra Pradesh all along, even while there were different judicial pronouncements on the Mulki Rules.

This is a fact which some people tend to forget. The present Bill retains the Mulki Rules in certain respects but provides for their phased repeal. I should like to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Government to come to the House again to extend the time limits in the Bill. As I have said earlier, in the life of a State, a period of five to eight years is an exceedingly small one. Recognising the fact that the capital belongs to both regions, the Central Government has decided to repeal the Mulki Rules in the twin cities three years earlier than in the remaining Telengana region. Even during the intervening period, employment opportunities in the capital are being extended and educational facilities expanded for the citizens of the other regions of Andhra Pradesh also.

This again gives rise to certain doubts and fears in the minds of our friends from Telengana. I should like to assure them that the present Bill not only keep in tact the safeguards voluntarily agreed to in the Public Employment Act, which was struck down subsequently, but seeks to go a little way beyond that.

The Bill covers three of the five points mentioned in our decisions. The two other points do not require any legislation. I am mentioning this, because this matter was commented upon from the Benches opposite. Considerable work has already been done on the scheme of regionalization of services, and the whole scheme will be finalized before long. The State Government will then make necessary amendments to their existing service rules and put the scheme into operation. The other decision related to the expansion of educational facilities in Hyderabad - Secunderabad. The Ministry of Education has already discussed this matter with the State Government and in the light of these discussions the State Government is framing specific proposals. Suitable machinery will be devised so that these measures are faithfully carried out.

While we were seeking a solution to this particular situation, other points have been raised. It is said that the continuance of the Regional Committee for the Telengana area impedes the integration of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Raghu Ramaiah and others have spoken about the separate budget for Telengana. A third point was that Telengana is not the only backward area in the State.

As you know, the Regional Committee is a committee of the legislature itself, set up at the time of the formation of the State, to give confidence to the people of the Telengana region that the assurances given to them were being properly implemented. It provided for the closer association of the people of Telengana in the development of their area.

The budget, of course, is not really separate, as Shri Raghu Ramaiah said. There are two separate sheets, but it still forms part of the same budget. But the basic problem is not of mathematical calculations. It is a question of the overall economic condition. I can appreciate the feelings of those who want all barriers which stand in the way of the fuller integration of the State to be removed. I look forward to a day when all these walls are demolished and there is no need to have such special arrangements. Such a situation will emerge progressively with the disappearance of economic disparities. May I remind this House that even the Constitution visualizes them as temporary and transitional? Meanwhile, of course we are giving special thought to what to do for the other backward areas of the State. The speedy development of those areas is equally important and suggestions have been made for some special arrangements which we are looking into. We would also be quite willing to have one or more regional committees or development boards for such areas, if the people so desire, and the details of this can be worked out in consultation with the leaders of the State.

Perhaps, there is a feeling that the norms adopted in allocating receipts and expenditure under different heads could be improved so as to make them more equitable to both regions. This question can also be gone into and if any assistance from the Central Government is called for we shall try to provide it. Because what is really needed is the provision of adequate resources and this is always dependent upon how much Shri Chavan can find for the entire country. He also does not have a magic bag into which he can dip for resources.

It is obvious that the resources of the entire State will have to be mobilized for this purpose. This is generally the approach which we have adopted for the removal of imbalances in the development. Whatever resources the Central Government can provide for this purpose will, I hope, be forthcoming.

Mr. Frank Anthony is not here. I have just one rejoinder to make. He was speaking about minorities and our friends of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and about their reservations. It is quite true that with all the reservations, everything that we had hoped to do has not been done. There are still many disabilities. But he addressed his remark to the wrong person, Shri Bhandare. Shri Bhandare is the one person who has always been elected from a general seat. He does not come from a reserved seat. So, his remark that “you will not be elected once reservation is removed”, was to the wrong person.

AN HON. MEMBER : Mr. B. P. Maurya also.

SHRIMATI INDIRA GANDHI : Yes, Shri B.P. Maurya also.

Sir, Parliament represents the will of the whole nation. Its duty is not merely to go into the rights and wrongs of a situation but also to view problems from the national point of view. Shri Chavan has stressed this point. But I would like to repeat it. While all of us here are elected from particular constituencies, once we are in this hall, I think we should consider ourselves not as merely the representatives of one little area but as the representatives of the whole country and the entire people of India. And each problem has to be viewed from that angle.

The very first article of our Constitution declares that India is a Union of States. Each State has had a long cultural and historical tradition and each State has become a political entity in its own special way. Andhra Pradesh has been a distinctive cultural unit for thousands of years. The name has been found in the earliest Buddhist writings. All the parts which now constitute Andhra Pradesh have been under one umbrella for long periods of history. Let us not look at just the immediate period of history.

Perhaps, it was this long history which inspired the Telugu-speaking people when they yearned and struggled for several decades to form a unified Andhra Pradesh. May I cite a little bit of my personal experience? I happened to be touring parts of the South just before the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission was made public and my ears are still reverberating with the full-throated cries of Vishal Andhra ….(Interruptions). It was really the will of the Telugu- speaking people which prevailed over the proposal of some people to retain the old Hyderabad State.

I have taken a lot of time. I should like to make one more point. Mr. Frank Anthony is absent. He spoke at length and he has on previous occasions spoken about the great mistake of forming linguistic States. There are some things which are part of our national life. It is true that the question of linguistic States was very much a part of the national movement. There was no getting away from it. The units of every part which was in existence at a time, were formed on the basis of language in spite of the British Provinces having different areas. There is an overall rationality in the formation of our various States and we should be very careful not to break this foundation of rationality in momentary passions. As I said at the beginning we should consider the feelings of people but it would be very wrong for the Government to be swept away by feelings. We must see what is in the larger interest of the people themselves. We are not saying that the interest of the people of Telengana should be sacrificed for our interest or for the interest of other parts of India. But the Government must think in a very calm manner about the interest of the people of that very region and see what will serve their interest best.

The Telugu-speaking people have a reputation of forthrightness but they also have an unsurpassed tradition of service to the nation. I am sure that no Telugu-speaking person whether he lives in the coastal region or in Rayalaseema or in Telengana will ever do anything even in anger or in desperation which is not in the larger interest of their entire State and also in the interest of the country as a whole. I can understand the emotions of our friends here. This has been a period of great agony for us all to watch the developments in Andhra Pradesh and the tragedies that are taking place. I also should like to express my deep sympathy with the parents and families of those who have lost their lives. But we must look at this matter in the larger perspective. This particular Bill of course does not touch the larger aspect at all. This is a very limited Bill but because hon. Members have talked about other things, I also had to give my views on them.