The idea of Telangana (1948-1970):
These notes are for Tspsc groups exams. Fazal ali Commission on Telangana (Initial debates and demand for Telangana State-Reasons for the Formation of States Reorganization Commission (SRC) under Fazal Ali in 1953-Main Provisions and Recommendations of SRC). here you get Fazal Ali Commission Main Provisions and Recommendations.
Fazal Ali Commission report:
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations:
1. States of the Indian Union.
- The present structure of the States of the Indian Union has been largely determined by the accidents and circumstances attending the expansion of British rule in India
- The formation of British Indian provinces in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was governed by considerations of administrative convenience and economy and reasons of military strategy and security. With the emergence of nationalism towards the end of the nineteenth century the policy of balance and counterpoise began to override purely administrative considerations in making territorial changes
- At the time of their integration the former princely States were in different stages of development. Some transitional expedients had, therefore, to be adopted to fit these units into the constitutional structure of India which added to the disparities already existing between British Indian provinces. These disparities led to the classification of the State of the Indian Union into three categories, namely, Part A, Part B and Part C States.
- No State of the Indian Union represents a pre-existing sovereign unit. A special feature of the Indian Constitution is that it empowers Parliament to admit or establish new States, to increase or diminish the area of an existing State or to alter its boundaries.
2. Rationale of Reorganisation
- The British gave only qualified support to the linguistic principle in making territorial adjustments between administrative units.
- The Indian National Congress accepted in 1920 linguistic redistribution of provinces as a political objective. During recent years, however, there has been a growing recognition of the need to balance the linguistic principle with other factors such as national unity, administrative, economic and other considerations.
- Andhra was formed by the separation of the Telugu-speaking districts of Madras but in determining the boundaries of even this State factors like cultural affinity, administrative convenience and economic well-being were considered along with language.
3. Time for Reorganisation
The problem of the reorganisation of States is urgent as with large-scale planning the country has to think in terms of enduring political units. The integration of States has removed the main hurdle in the way of rationalisation of the existing units. Further deferment of a general reorganisation will cause dissatisfaction and disappointment.
4. Factors bearing on Reorganisation
- In proposing any changes in the existing structure, due consideration should be given to the unsettling consequences of reorganisation. The changes proposed should be such as would compensate, in terms of the welfare of the people, for the administrative dislocation and the heavy burden on the administrative and financial resources of the country which they entail.
- In the interests of national unity, it is necessary that the administrative and political structure of the country should be based on the primacy of the nation.
- The administrative set-up in strategic areas should be determined primarily by considerations of national security. When border areas are not under the direct control of the Centre, it would be safer to have relatively large and resourceful States.
- It is neither possible nor desirable to reorganise States on the basis of a single test of either language or culture; a balanced approach, which takes all relevant factors into account, is necessary.
- Financial viability has an important bearing on reorganisation proposals, but it has to be considered along with other relevant factors.
- Some degree of dislocation in the working of the next plan is likely to be caused by any scheme of reorganisation; this dislocation, however, should be considered along with the possible advantages of reorganisation. Steps should also be taken to minimise the unsettling effects of reorganisation.
- The States cannot be so reorganised as to conform to economic regions. Nor can the principle of economic self-sufficiency within an administrative unit be regarded as a clear criterion. Consistently with these principles it would be desirable to avoid as far as possible wide disparities in resources between the various States.
- The units should be large enough to ensure administrative efficiency and the co-ordination of economic development and welfare activities.
- The wishes of the people should be regarded as an important factor bearing on reorganisation but they have to be considered along with other relevant factors.
- The facts of the existing situation are more important than the previous historical associations of different areas. Undue importance cannot be attached, therefore, to historical arguments.
- Geographical contiguity of the units is important from the point of view of administrative convenience. Other geographical factors have to be regarded as secondary.
- No proposals for reorganisation should be determined by a single test. Conclusions have to be reached after taking into consideration the totality of circumstances in each case.
5. Basic pattern of the component units
- The existing constitutional disparity between the different constituent units of the Indian Union should disappear as a necessary consequence of recrganisation.
- Part B States can be equated with Part A States by omitting Article 371 of the Constitution and by abolishing the institution of the Rajpramukh.
- The existing Part C States which provide no adequate recompense for all the constitutional, administrative and financial problems which they pose should, to the extent practicable, be merged in the adjoining larger States.
- In respect of three of the Part C States, namely, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch and Tripura the Central Government should retain supervisory power for a specified period to maintain their present pace of development.
- Such of the existing Part C States as cannot be merged in the adjoining areas for security and other imperative considerations should be administered by the Centre as “territories”.
- The component units of the Indian Union should thus consist of two categories
(a) “States” forming primary federating units of the Indian Union; and
(b) “Territories” which are centrally-administered.
6. Proposals for Reorganisation
According to the scheme of reorganisation which is dealt with in Chapters 2 to 19 of Part 3 of this report, there should be sixteen constituent units, to be called States, and three administered territories. The proposals regarding these units are summarised below.
1. Madras: This State should include the existing territories subject to the following adjustments, namely,
- the five taluks of Agastheeswaram, Thovala, Kalkulam, Vilavancode and Shencotta, now forming part of Travancore-Cochin, should be transferred to the State of Madras, and
- The districts of Malabar and South Kanara and the Kollegal Taluk of the Coimbatore district should be detached from Madras.
2.Kerala: The State of Kerala should be formed, which should consist of the following areas.
- the State of Travancore-Cochin minus the five taluks proposed to be transferred to Madras;
- the Malabar district (including Fort Cochin and the Laccadive Islands), the Kasaragod Taluk of the South Kanara District and the Amindive Islands.
3. Karnataka: The State of Karnataka should be created consisting of the following areas:-
- the present State of Mysore, excluding the Siruguppa takuk, the Bellary taluk, the Hospet taluk and a small portion of the Mallapuram sub-taluk of the Bellary district;
- the four Kannada-speaking districts of Bombay, namely, Dharwar, Bijapur, North Kanara and Belgaum, (except the Chandgad taluk of Belgaum district);
- the districts of Raichur and Gulbarga from Hyderabad;
- the South Kanara district of Madras minus the Kasaragod taluk,
- the Kollegeal taluk of the Coimbatore district of Madras, and
4. Hyderabad: Apart from the districts of Raichur and Gulbarga, the Marathwada districts should also be detached from the Hyderabad State. The residuary State which should continue to be known as Hyderabad should consist of the Telugu-speaking districts of the present State of Hyderabad, namely, Mahbubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal (including Khammam), Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad, Hyderabad and Medak, along with Bidar district, and the Munagala enclave in the Nalgonda district belonging to the Krishna district of Andhra.
The residuary State of Hyderabad might unite with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the Hyderabad State expresses itself in favour of such unification.
The future of the remaining areas of Hyderabad, consisting of the districts known as Marathwada, is dealt with later on under Bombay.
5. Andhra: The Andhra State should for the time being continue as it is, subject to certain minor adjustments which are mentioned below.
The taluks of Siruguppa, Bellary and Hospet and a portion of the Mallapuram sub-taluk of the Bellary district should be transferred to Andhra.
The Munagala enclave of the Krishna district, as has already been stated, should be transferred to Hyderabad.
There should be no change in the present position regarding Madras City and its future should be regarded as finally settled
6. Bombay: The State of Bombay should be reconstituted so as to include the existing Bombay State minus the Abu Road taluk of the Banaskantha district and the Kannada-speaking districts of Dharwar, Bijapur, North Kanara and Belgaum (excluding the Chandgad taluk), plus the following areas:
- the Marathi-speaking districts of Hyderabad, namely, Osmanabad, Bhir, Aurangabad, Parbhani and Nanded;
- Saurashtra; and
7. Vidarbha : A new State to be known as Vidarbha should be created, consisting of the following Marathi-speaking districts of Madhya Pradesh, namely, Buldana, Akola, Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha, Nagpur, Bhandara and Chanda.
8. Madhya Pradesh: After the separation of Vidarbha, a new State, which may be known as Madhya Pradesh, should be created consisting of:
- the 14 districts of the residuary Madhya Pradesh;
- the whole of Bhopal and the whole of Vindhya Pradesh;
- Madhya Bharat except the Sunel enclave of the Mandsaur district; and
- the Sironj sub-division of the Kotah district of Rajasthan.
9. Rajasthan: After the proposed merger of Sironj in the new Madhya Pradesh State, Rajasthan should continue in its present form subject to the addition of territories mentioned below:
- Ajmer, and
- the Abu Road taluk of the Banaskantha district of Bombay, the Sunel enclave of the Mandsaur district of Madhya Bharat and the Loharu sub-tehsil of the Hissar district of the Punjab.
10.The Punjab: There is no case for dividing the present Punjab State. PEPSU and the Himachal Pradesh should, however, be merged in the Punjab.
The Loharu sub-tehsil of the Hissar district, as already stated, should be transferred to Rajasthan.
Apart from the safeguards referred to in paragraph 24 of this summary, Himachal Pradesh should be represented in the Punjab cabinet by at least one member.
11.Uttar Pradesh: There is no case for dividing the Uttar Pradesh, and this State should continue in its existing form.
12.Bihar: It does not seem to be either necessary or desirable to create a Jharkhand State in south Bihar, the special needs of this area should, however, be recognised.
Seraikella and Kharsawan should continue to be part of Bihar Some adjustments in two eastern districts belonging to Bihar are indicated under West Bengal.
13. West Bengal: A portion of the Purnea district east of the river Mahananda and the Purulia sub-district of the Manbhum district minus the Chas thana should be transferred from Bihar to West Bengal.
Subject to the recommendations summarised in the immediately preceding paragraph, no boundary adjustments seem to be called for in order to satisfy claims and counter-claims in respect of the border areas of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Orissa.
14. Assam: Assam should continue as it is subject to the changes mentioned below.
The demand for the creation of a hill State in Assam is impracticable and there is also no reason, having regard to the peculiar features and circumstances of Assam, why a separate hill State should be created; special attention should, however, be paid to the development of the hill districts and an enquiry into the working of the autonomous bodies created under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution should be undertaken.
Tripura should be merged in Assam.
The present arrangements with regard to the North East Frontier Agency should continue.
15. Orissa: No changes are called for in the boundaries of Orissa which were fixed in 1936 after prolonged and detailed examination.
16. Jammu and Kashmir: No recommendations are made in regard to Jammu and Kashmir.
The units or areas which have not been dealt with so far will be directly administered by the Centre and will known as territories.
- Delhi- Delhi should be constituted into such a centrally administered territory; the question of creating a municipal Corporation with substantial powers should be considered.
- Manipur- Manipur should be a centrally administered territory for the time being. The ultimate merger of this State in Assam should be kept in view.
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands- the status quo in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands should continue.
The arrangements in regard to areas which have been or may be brought under Central administration in future, either before or after becoming de jure part of the territory of India, must be flexible, until the position is finally clarified.
You may also like Fazal ali report on telangana