Friday, January 7, 2011

Srikrishna Committee comes out with 6 options



                      Srikrishna Committee comes out with 6 options




NEW DELHI: The Justice Srikrishna Committee, which held wide consultations in the last 11 months on demands for a separate State of Telangana as well as for keeping Andhra Pradesh united, has offered half-a-dozen options on which the government may take a call in about six weeks.
Well placed sources here said on Wednesday that the Central government would like to take a decision on the options given by the five-member panel, most probably before the budget session of Parliament that begins in February third week.
The committee, headed by the former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, is believed not to have equivocally recommended any particular option but gave views — with the pros and cons along with the historical background — in each of the six options.

The suggestions include keeping Andhra Pradesh in the present form, forming a separate Telangana, and making Hyderabad a Union Territory, the sources said.
An extensive examination of the socio-economic factors in all regions of the State led the committee to conclude that there was no material basis for treating only the Telangana districts as “backward,” the sources noted.
The panel was appointed by the Centre on February 3 last year and it submitted an 800-page two-volume report to Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram on December 30.
Mr. Chidambaram has convened a meeting of the eight recognised political parties of the State here on Thursday to share the report with them and elicit their views. However, the Telangana Rashtra Samiti, the BJP and the Telugu Desam Party have decided to boycott the meeting.
The report is likely to be uploaded in the government's website at 11.30 a.m. after the copies are given to the parties.
Corrections and Clarifications
The third paragraph of the news report, “Srikrishna Committee comes out with 6 options” (January 6, 2011), said: “The committee … is believed not to have equivocally recommended any particular option…” It should have said unequivocally recommended

No comments: