General Awareness Topics: 2013

Telangana
Why Telangana
1. There are 10 districts in Telangana, 9 in Andhra and 4 in Rayalaseema. Out of these Districts, 7 are in
Telangana, 3 are in Andhra and 1 in Rayalaseema are considered as severely backward districts which
means 70% of districts in Telangana are backward while in Andhra it is 35% and in Rayalaseema it is
25%. Apart from these there are some areas in all parts of the state which are also backward.
2. 45% of the state income comes from Telangana region. When it comes to utilization of funds, the
share of Telangana is only 28%.
3. Two major rivers Krishna and Tungabhadra enter the state of AP in the district of Mahaboobnagar
(the biggest district in Telangana) but the district always remains the worst draught hit areas along with
Anantapur because there is no project and process with which the water can be utilized. The plan for
utilization has been pending for decades.
4. In Telangana regions, only few areas cultivate one crop a year and very rarely two crops a year while
most of the land doesn't even cultivate single crop. In both the Godavari districts, Krishna and Guntur
district, two crops a year is common and there are times where even 3 crops a year are cultivated. The
only reason is WATER.
5. Not even a single project was completed in Telangana in the last 5 years while several projects were
completed in Andhra and Rayalaseema. Not just Telangana but areas of Northern Andhra, Prakasham
and parts of Rayalaseema are still backward. The state needs to progress as a unit. People are suffering
across the state and they need a solution.

Points for :
1.
Why
are
we
hearing
separate
Telangana
slogan
again?
The demand for a separate state of Telangana isn't new. Telanganites have very clearly expressed their
opposition a decade before Andhra Pradesh was formed. They reasoned that in a united Andhra Pradesh
they will not get justice. Even after five decades, this demand is continuing. The reason for this is the
experience of past 48 years that justice will not be done to Telangana and belief that it will continue to
be denied to Telanganites in united AP.
2.
Isn't
Telangana
slogan
the
creation
of
unemployed
politicians?
Telangana demand is a peoples' movement born out of their problems. Are all the people robbed
unabatedly, continuously for the 48-years and raising their voice again, unemployed political leaders?
Who are the unemployed political Leaders? Are they the farmers that have been suffering for lack of
drinking water, irrigations water, and cuts in electric supply? Are they the workers who lost their

livelihood due to lack of new industries, and closure of existing industries? Are they the unemployed
youth whose job opportunities are hijacked by outsiders? Are they the innumerable people who have
been labelled and suppressed as terrorists because they raised their voice for Telangana? When people
are subject to robbery and injustice and take to the streets, it is natural for leaders to enter the fray. Just
because out of power politicians support Telangana statehood, does it stop being peoples' movement?
In any movement, politicians in and out of power join in. Some even deceive and attempt to side line the
movement, but they can't stop the movement. Movements continue until justice is served to the
people. The educated that are the pillars of this movement aren't unemployed. They aren't even after
employment for themselves.
3. Why didn't the Chief Ministers that came from Telangana area work to develop Telangana?
It is true that PV Narasimha Rao, Marri Chenna Reddy (twice), T. Anjiah from Telangana were Chief
Ministers of AP. Altogether they were in power for 6-years in four terms. It is also true they haven't
made any noticeable development of Telangana. Jalagam Vengal Rao was a settler. He never assimilated
himself in Telangana. He is credited with the disservice to Telangana by extending Nagarjun Sagar left
canal. Then what about, Rayala Seema? There were stalwarts from Rayala seems that were in power for
twenty years. (N. Sanjeeva Reddy-2terms, Damodaram Sanjeeviah, K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy-2 terms, CB
Naidu-2 terms). Why is Rayalaseema backward? Fact is they slaved for the Coastal Andhra wealth and
the privileged few of these wealthy that control the politics of the state. Fazal Ali commission recognized
the consequences of mixing a developed area with a backward area and recommended that Telangana
be kept as a separate state. If this country's politicians had the wherewithal to listen to the wise men,
we wouldn't be in this situation!
4. Isn't it detrimental to Indian national unity if small states are continuously created?
Out of the 35 states currently in India (28 states and 7 central possessions), 70% are smaller than
Telangana. Telangana's population is 30 million plus. There are 25 states that are smaller than
Telangana. If these twenty-five don't cause national unity issues, why would creation of a larger state be
any dangerous?
7. Isn't a separate state, a nation dividing, people separating and demand?
If the desire of a people of a region to have their own state is a divisive act, then all states formation is a
divisive act. In fact language based state formation itself is a divisive act. Same reasons that Potti
Sriramulu, the architect for separation of Andhra from Madras state, presented are the reasons
Telanganites want their own state. The same argument used by the Andhras in the past is used by
Telanganites now. If it was not an objectionable demand then how could it be objectionable now?
9. There are other backward areas in the state. Why should only Telangana people have a separate
state
of
their
own?
Just as Telangana, Rayalaseema and north Andhra have been discriminated. True. But, additionally
Telangana has been systemically robbed. Diversion of this regions natural resources, water,
underground resources and their income to other areas, the robbing of jobs from the region's people,
Colonization aren't directed at other areas. Additionally the Telanganites have been subject to ridicule
with respect to the language and the politicians have been looked down upon to the extent they lost
their self-image. To preserve their self-respect and to protect their region's natural resources, people of
Telangana want their own state.
11. Instead of asking for a separate state, why can't you fight for development within the frame work
of
united
AP?

The promises of Telangana development have been made for the past 48 years in united AP. Before and
after the formation of AP, Which promises were kept? Which agreements were respected? Which
projects were implemented? Which principles were they bound to? From the first day of AP formation,
till to-day, agreements are being broken. What were the united AP wishers do? Did they even express
any concerns? How long should the Telangana people bear this and put up with this injustice?

Lokpal Bill:

The term Lokpal was coined in 1963 by Laxmi Mall Singhvi, a Member of Parliament during a
parliamentary debate about grievance mechanisms
Maharashtrawas the first state to introduce Lokayukta through The Maharashtra Lokayukta and
Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971
Lokayuktas: The new bill mandates states to set up Lokayuktas within 365 days. States have the
freedom to determine the nature and type of Lokayukta.
The old bill said the law shall be applicable to states only if they give consent to its application.
The old bill gave power to the central government to appoint state Lokayuktas while the new
draft gives this power to the states.
Constitution of Lokpal: The Lokpal will consist of a chairperson and a maximum of eight
members, of which fifty percent shall be judicial members. Fifty percent members of Lokpal
shall be from among SC, ST, OBCs, minorities and women.
The older version said the chairperson shall be the Chief Justice of India or a present or former
judge of the Supreme Court or a non-judicial member with specified qualifications (chief justice
or a judge of a high court).
Selection of Lokpal: The selection committee will have prime minister, Lok Sabha speaker,
leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. A fifth member of the
selection committee for selection of Lokpal under the category of "eminent jurist" may be
nominated by the president on the basis of recommendation of the first four members of the
selection committee.
In the old bill, selection of the fifth person was left entirely to the president.
Religious bodies and trust: The new bill includes societies and trusts that collect public money,
receive funding from foreign sources, and have an income level above a certain threshold, it
excludes bodies creating endowments for or performing religious or charitable functions.
The old bill expanded definition of public servant by bringing societies and trusts which receive
donations from the public (over a specified annual income) and, organisations which receive
foreign donations (over Rs.10 lakh a year) within the purview of the Lokpal.
Prosecution: In the new version, before taking a decision on filing a charge sheet in a case upon
consideration of the investigation report, the Lokpal may authorise its own prosecution wing or
the concerned investigating agency to initiate prosecution in special courts.
Under the old bill, prosecution of the case could be done only by the prosecution wing of the
Lokpal.
Central Bureau of Investigation: For independence of the CBI, in the new bill a directorate of
prosecution will be formed. Appointment of the director of prosecution will be on the
recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commissioner.
Transfer of officers of CBI investigating cases referred by Lokpal will be only with the approval
of Lokpal who will also have superintendence over CBI in relation to Lokpal referred cases.

Hearing: The new bill says a government servant will get a hearing before a decision is taken by
the Lokpal.
Prime Minister: The prime minister will be under the purview of the Lokpal with subject matter
exclusions and specific process for handling complaints against the prime minister.
Investigation: Inquiry has to be completed within 60 days and investigation to be completed
within six months. Lokpal shall order an investigation only after hearing the public
servant. Inquiry against the prime minister has to be held in-camera and approved by two-thirds
of the full bench of the Lokpal.
Penalty: False and frivolous complaints - imprisonment up to one year and a fine of up to Rs.1
lakh. Public servants - imprisonment up to seven years. Criminal misconduct and habitually
abetting corruption - jail term up to 10 years.
The existing anti-corruption agencies [CVC], departmental vigilance and the anti-corruption
branch of the [CBI] will be merged into Lokpal which will have complete power authority to
independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.

IPC 377:

On 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court of India ruled homosexuality to be a criminal offence
setting aside the 2009 judgement given by the Delhi High Court.
The bench of justices G.S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya however noted that the parliaments
should debate and decide on the matter. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya
upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code that makes anal sex a
punishable offence.
The central government has filed a review petition on 21 December 2013. In its review petition
the Centre said: The judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, and is
contrary to well-established principles of law laid down by the apex Court enunciating the width
and ambit of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The IPC,
when enacted in 1860, was justified; but with the passage of time it had become arbitrary and
unreasonable, the petition added. Naz Foundation has also filed a review petition against the
Supreme Court order on Section 377
Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code dating back to 1861,[1] introduced during
the British rule of India, criminalises sexual activities "against the order of nature",
including homosexual acts.
The section was declared unconstitutional with respect to sex between consenting adults by
the High Court of Delhi on 2 July 2009. That judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of
India on 11 December 2013, with the Court holding that amending or repealing Section 377
should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.
Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional room for change in Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code that holds same gender sexual relationship an offence.

Supreme Courts verdict in detail:

Para 40-- The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (The Naz Foundation) was singularly
laconic in as much as except giving brief detail of the work being done by it for HIV
prevention targeting MSM community. The Naz Foundation, the SC observed, miserably

failed to furnish the particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by

the State agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human
rights to them.
Naz Foundation did not furnished the particulars of the cases involving harassment and
assault from public and public authorities to sexual minorities.
Only in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of AIDS Control it has been averred that estimated HIV prevalence among:
FSW (female sex workers) is 4.60% to 4.94%
MSM (men who have sex with men) is 6.54% to 7.23%
IDU (injecting drug users) is 9.42% to 10.30%.
The affidavit also states that the total population of MSM as in 2006 was estimated to
be 25,00,000 and 10% of them are at risk of HIV and it further provides the State-wise
break up of estimated size of high risk men who have sex with men and the State-wise
details of total adult population, estimated adult HIV prevalence and estimated number
of HIV infections as in 2009. These details the SC held are wholly insufficient for
recording a finding that homosexuals, gays, etc., are being subjected to discriminatory
treatment either by State or its agencies or the society.
Para 42 -- Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who
indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and
the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the
vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification.
The High Court was not right in declaring Section 377 IPC ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of
the Constitution because Section 377 merely defines the particular offence and
prescribes punishment for the same which can be awarded if in the trial conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other statutes of
the same family the person is found guilty.
Para 43 -- The SC judges observed that the Division Bench of the High Court while
reading down Section 377 of the India Penal Court overlooked that a miniscule fraction
of the countrys population constitute lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgender and in
last more than 150 years less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing
offence under Section 377 of the IPC. This, the SC said, cannot be made sound basis for
declaring that section ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution.
Para 45 (The issue of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution) The requirement of
substantive due process has been read into the Indian Constitution through a combined
reading of Articles 14, 21 and 19 and it has been held as a test which is required to be
satisfied while judging the constitutionality of a provision which intents to restrict or
limit the right to life and liberty, including the rights of privacy, dignity and autonomy
under Article 21. In order to fulfill this test, the law must not only be competently
legislated but it must also be just, fair and reasonable. Arising from this are the notions
of legitimate state interest and the principle of proportionality.
Para 51 -- The Naz Foundation attacked Section 377 of the IPC on the ground that the
same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on certain
persons, especially those belonging to the LGBT community. In our opinion, this
treatment is neither mandated by the section nor condoned by it. The mere fact that
the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of

the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the
desirability of amending Section 377 of the IPC.
Para 52 -- In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare
that Section 377 violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has
extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments
shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to
the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for
deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature.
Para 54 -- The SC held that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of
unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is
legally unsustainable.
Para 55 -- The appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the
writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (The Naz Foundation) is dismissed.

Food Security Act:

The Act proposes food grain entitlement for up to 75 % of the rural and up to 50 % of
the urban population, i.e. 67% of the overall population.
This Act proposes to give 5 kg of grains per month per person at subsidized prices, i.e. Rs
3/- per kg for rice, Rs 2/- per kg for wheat and Rs 1/- per kg for coarse grains.
The poorest households would continue to receive 35 kilograms of grains per month
under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana at subsidized prices.
Every pregnant and lactating mother shall be entitled to get free meal during pregnancy
and 6 months after child birth. And they will also get maternity benefit of not less than
Rs.6000/-.
If the Central Govt. fails to provide food grains, it will give food security allowance to the
entitled persons. States will identify the beneficiaries.
Argument for:
o 'Right to food' will become a legal right.
o This Act will help to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in the country.
o Inflation is on the rise; this is the time poor people need food security.
o It helps to empower women as the eldest woman will be the head of the family.
o Nutritious food will be given to pregnant and lactating mothers. This will lead to
healthier families.
Arguments against:
o These food grains will be distributed through the already existing PDS (Public
Distribution System). This PDS has many loopholes such as leakage of food
grains, corruption, etc.
o The exact number of poor has not been calculated correctly. Different
departments give different numbers. And the criteria for measuring the
percentage of poor people is not up to the mark.
o The cost of this bill Rs.1.24 lakh crores, which will be a burden for the
government, and may lead to fiscal deficit.

o
o

As India exports grains to other countries, Food Security Act will hamper our
exports, leading to more current account deficit. More CAD means more rupee
fall, means more expensive imports, means more inflation.
Farmers have to sell their food grains for procurement prices rather than market
prices. It will be a loss for farmers.
Small farmers may shift to other crops, as they will get the subsidized food
grains. This will reduce the production of food grains.

Land Acquisition Bill

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013 is a legislation that regulates land acquisition and
provides rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the
affected persons in India.
Public Concern- There was heightened public concern on land acquisition issues
and on the absence of a national law to provide for the resettlement,
rehabilitation and compensation for loss of livelihood.
Outdated Law- While multiple amendments have been made to the original act,
the principal law continues to be the same i.e. the Land Acquisition Act of 1894
Need for Balance- Addressing concerns of farmers and those whose livelihood is
dependent on the land being acquired and at the same time facilitating land
acquisition for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization.
Although the act is a huge improvement over the existing law, it has its own
share of shortcomings and policy ambiguities that overshadow much of the
progressive measures.
Despite all claims of having restored clarity, the Act fails to address the most
problematic issue of "public purpose".
Public purpose has been defined as "the provision of land for infrastructure,
industrialization and urbanization projects of appropriate government, where
benefits largely accrue to the general public".
Different stakeholders can interpret this differently. In effect, the Act does not
clarify how private and public purpose in a private sector-led project will be
evaluated.
By raising the consent requirement to an unrealistic 80% in case of private land
acquisition and 70% in the case of public-private projects (PPP) in critical sectors
of the economy such as mining, defense, infrastructure, manufacturing zones,
roads, railways and ports, the process of land acquisition has actually become
extremely lengthy and difficult.
Such is the proposed law that a handful of motivated land-owners can block or
jeopardize projects of strategic importance.

The issue of consent and time period is nothing compared to the price that
would be paid for future land acquisition.
An arbitrary method of fixing price of land acquisition at the rate of four times
for rural land and two times in the case of urban land not only ignores the
dynamics of land markets, it is also against any logic.
Not only would it lead to speculative activities by simplistically clubbing all lands
into two categories (rural and urban), the proposed law would further
complicate much of the land acquisition process and may erect new zones of
conflicts.
For instance, the Act clubs rural land in Haryana with rural land in Mizoram as
the same, ignoring the land holding sizes, varied demand patterns and their use.
Importantly, the Act fails to price the per-urban lands and thus, would greatly
harm lands in scheduled areas.
While concerns over loss of multi-crop agriculture land (reasons of food security
and other agrarian concerns including the loss of livelihood) is understandable,
such a blanket ban would create havoc for the country's urbanization plan as it
would affect spatial urban spread.
While the Act promises transparency and certainty in the acquisition process
and later, by having several layers (at least five) of bureaucracy for all land
acquisition cases, it makes simple land acquisition a complicated exercise.
Adding a retrospective clause to pay in cases where land was acquired five years
ago without compensation is a retrograde step. Not only does it spike the
project costs for thousands of entrepreneurs who are still struggling with
acquisition hurdles, but also sends a wrong signal to prospective investors.
It's a nave treatment of rapidly evolving land markets (clubbing as merely rural
and urban) and casting every entrepreneur as a 'predator' could harm future
industrialization of the country one of the most important ways to lift millions
of impoverished laborers out of a stunted farm sector.
Finally, while the bill has brought transparency in land acquisition, by
incorporating too many instruments and agencies to ensure the same, it instead
risks making the process overly bureaucratic. In short, the bill ends up replacing
a coercive colonial law with a cumbersome one.