There will naturally be differences of opinion among Andhra Pradesh legislators and political parties on issues regarding the bifurcation of the state, but the way the state legislature concluded a historic session devoted to this question on Thursday was unfortunate. Hatred was whipped up in speeches. Viable points did not come through in the debate.
This is a pity. It is well recognised that Parliament is supreme in bifurcating a state. But the opinion of the state legislature in question has to be furnished to Parliament. But AP legislators surrendered an opportunity to make cogent points.
The President sent the AP State Re-Organisation Bill of 2013 to the state legislature, which was given six weeks to consider it.
The time was extended by a week. Legislators were expected to debate the bill threadbare, raise the concerns of their respective regions, suggest solutions to problems, and seek redress of their grievances.
Had this happened, the debate would have been meaningful. Then the onus would have been squarely on Parliament to contend with the issues raised, and to find a meaningful way. Alas, this is not what has happened.
Our legislators were happy to let time slip by. The debate on the Bill was commenced only after MLAs and MLCs took their holidays. They cannot now complain of lack of time.
While legislators did not seize the opportunity to put across their views, in the last four and a half years several rounds of consultations on the issue of AP bifurcation have taken place in various forums. These will certainly be reflected when Parliament considers the question.
As for the AP legislature, its members were content to trade charges, repeat old statements, and engage in a blame game. Parties resorted to one-upmanship with an eye to the upcoming Lok Sabha poll. Proceedings were regularly disturbed. Altogether, it was a show of disregard of the bifurcation issue.
Compounding the miseries was the resolution moved by Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy — in his capacity as the Leader of the House — that the Bill sent by the President be rejected. It seemed inappropriately timed.
The CM, who has politically opposed the bifurcation, could have brought his resolution before the Bill was tabled in the legislature. Or, he should have done so after the debate was completed in all respects. Then his reasons for opposing the Bill might have been widely appreciated.
But the way things happened, two thirds of legislators, including the Leader of the Opposition, did not get a chance to express their views. What is the point of a resolution that was deemed introduced and was adopted by a voice vote, amidst din?
