This implied threat to Mulki Rules as such exacerbated the discontent and with K.V. Ranga Reddy, Channa Reddy and other self-centred leaders taking up the cause, the Separate Telangana movement raged in all its ferocity. Much agitation and violence was there, and indiscriminate repression and police firings too resulting in the deaths of more than 300 agitators. A Telangana Praja Samiti was formed, which contested the 1971 parliamentary elections under the overall leadership of Channa Reddy and won a thumping majority of 10 out of 14 Lok Sabha seats in the Telangana area. However, Channa Reddy and other TPS leaders soon compromised with Indira Gandhi and were willing to abide by the eight-point and five-point formulas devised by or at the instance of her. Meanwhile the Andhra Pradesh High Court sitting in Full Bench (larger bench) of 5 Judges struck down the Mulki Rules as ultra vires the Constitution and this further complicated the matters. However, the decision was soon appealed to the Supreme Court vide CA No. 993/1972 and a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the larger bench of the High Court on 03-10-1972 holding that the mulki rules continued to be valid under Article 35 (b) of the Constitution [see AIR 1973 SC 827].
The legal history relating to the Mulki Rules subsequent to the liberation of Hyderabad is briefly narrated hereunder: The above quoted Mulki Rules were continued after the liberation of Hyderabad by the Nizam who was designated the Rajpramukh of the Hyderabad State. And this arrangement continued even after the advent of the Indian Constitution which came into force from November 1949 and also after India was declared as Republic on 26 January 1950. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 issued by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Art. 372(2) saved all existing Central Laws, Provincial Laws and State Laws. The definition of ‘existing State Law’ in that Order, which came into force on 26 January 1950, would encompass the Mulki Rules too. Thereafter the relevant saving provisions in the States Reorganization Act as also the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957 would save these Mulki Rules. However, that would again be subject to the Mulki Rules being not hit by Article 13 of the Constitution or more specifically the said Rules could be law saved by Article 35(b) subject to the terms of Article 16 (3) of the Constitution.
The legal history relating to the Mulki Rules subsequent to the liberation of Hyderabad is briefly narrated hereunder: The above quoted Mulki Rules were continued after the liberation of Hyderabad by the Nizam who was designated the Rajpramukh of the Hyderabad State. And this arrangement continued even after the advent of the Indian Constitution which came into force from November 1949 and also after India was declared as Republic on 26 January 1950. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 issued by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Art. 372(2) saved all existing Central Laws, Provincial Laws and State Laws. The definition of ‘existing State Law’ in that Order, which came into force on 26 January 1950, would encompass the Mulki Rules too. Thereafter the relevant saving provisions in the States Reorganization Act as also the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957 would save these Mulki Rules. However, that would again be subject to the Mulki Rules being not hit by Article 13 of the Constitution or more specifically the said Rules could be law saved by Article 35(b) subject to the terms of Article 16 (3) of the Constitution.
However, the repugnancy of the Mulki Rules to the relevant provisions in the Constitution of India, especially the fundamental rights enshrined in and guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, came to be pointed out from time to time. As long as Hyderabad State was an integrated unit even after independence this controversy, though was there on a low key, did not assume difficult dimensions. However, with the trifurcation of the Hyderabad State and merger of different linguistic areas in the adjacent linguistic states the controversy began to gradually simmer up and grow to threatening proportions. A strong argument that since Hyderabad has never been a territory of [British] India, the Mulki Rules could not be existing law in force after its liberation and merger in Indian Union was there from the inception and was canvassed elaborately by Sri P.A. Chowdary (later become Judge of AP High Court and retired) in various writ petitions filed in the High Court after the formation of Andhra Pradesh. But this point was rejected by the Courts and the Supreme Court has amply clarified that the territory of India as envisaged in the Constitution comprises also of the later additions to it. Then the Government of Hyderabad and the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had also clarified that such of the provisions in the Mulki Rules which conferred a status by birth could not be validated, and are hit by Article 13 of the Constitution, as they would violate the fundamental right of no discrimination on the basis of birth or race and as such only such of the rules which speak as to requirement of residence for the purposes of public employment could claim any validity. Accordingly the requirement of residence of 15 years in the Hyderabad State was called for with respect to public employment in the State by means of various Government Orders and circulars. Later, after Andhra Pradesh was formed, a Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 (44 of 1957) was enacted by the Parliament as per the mandate in Article 16 (3) read with Article 35 of the Constitution and by Section 2 of the Act the Mulki Rules also stood repealed, but by Section 3 of the Act the same requirement as to residence as was there in the Mulki Rules (i.e. of a period of 15 years) was declared essential for public employment purposes in the Telangana area of the State for a period of 5 years. Later this was extended by amendments to 10 + 5 years. Even by the later limit the requirement as to residence was to expire by 21 March 1974, if not further extended within that period.
However, dissatisfaction in the hearts and minds of competing candidates and employees of different regions precipitated the matters much before the changing deadlines and the 1960’s witnessed a number of litigations, mainly writ petitions challenging the validity of these requirement as to residence rules which were akin to the Mulki Rules. A Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. comprising Justice Kumarayya and Justice Manohar Pershad had by its judgment dated 03-02-1966 in W.A. No. 152 of 1965 had taken note of the fact that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its G.O. Ms. No. 1936 dated 23-12-1960 had deleted the Mulki Rules provision from the Statute Book in view of S. 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957. But that did not receive much public attention and the controversy in real intensity started with the decision dated 03-02-1969 of Justice Chinnappa Reddy in P. Dharmaiah’s case (AIR 1970 AP 236). The learned Judge struck down Section 3 of the above mentioned Public Employment (R-R) Act, 1957 as violative of Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, which did not permit any discrimination on regional basis for residential requirement within a State. He held that as the residential requirement was prescribed only for Telangana region within the State of Andhra Pradesh, it clearly ran counter to the letter and spirit of Article 16 (3) and as such could not be saved by Article 35 (b) either. He also found the Rules under S. 3 of the PE (R-R) Act suffered from the vice of impermissible delegation of powers. Though Justice Chinnappa Reddy nowhere referred to the Mulki Rules as such in the decision and also did not speak of the effect of his decision on the fate of Section 2 of the same Act repealing Mulki Rules, this decision was widely taken to be a striking down of the Mulki Rules and with that the ongoing agitation for ‘Safeguards to Telangana people’ has turned intense and violent and completely transformed itself into a ‘Separate Telangana’ agitation. However, within three weeks thereof, that decision was reversed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which inter alia observed that even if, as the single Judge opined, Section 3 of the Act was constitutionally untenable, that would not have any effect on the Mulki Rules which may have to be taken as having revived due to such quashing of that section. However, that was a mere obiter dictum and there was no considered opinion expressed on the matter.
As things stood there, another course of litigation brought out a fuller discussion and decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on this vexed question of Mulki Rules. “Writ Petition No. 2524 of 1967 was filed by 12 Extension Officers in the Department of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh. They were appointed as Extension Officers in May, 1961, and after they underwent training, were posted in various districts. The strength of the cadre of Extension Officers was reduced and that led to the retrenchment of some of the personnel including the petitioners, who were absorbed in another cadre, viz., Senior Inspectors. This absorption resulted in diminution of their scale of pay. Their grievance was that persons appointed later and juniors to them in service were retained as Extension Officers, whereas they, by an order dated September 18, 1967, were retrenched and that, instead of following the rule ‘last come, first go’, the juniors in rank were sought to be retained as Extension Officers by reason of their residence in Telengana area and that such a preferential treatment on the basis of residential qualification is discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.” The single Judge (Krishna Rao J) had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners who were temporary employees could have no claim to seniority or ‘first come, last go’ principle and they could be terminated at any point of time but also held that as S. 3 of the PE (R-R) Act was held untenable and S. 2 that repealed the Mulki Rules too was all the same tenable, the petitioners could have no defence on the basis of Mulki Rules either. This decision was challenged by way of Writ Appeal No. 633 of 1970 when the Division Bench thought it appropriate to request the CJ to refer the matter to a Full Bench of five judges since a previous decision of a FB of 5 Judges of AP High Court in P. Lakshman Rao’s case [AIR 1971 AP 118] was cited and was under challenge in the matter. Accordingly the matter was referred to a five judge Full Bench by the CJ which, by majority (4:1), held that “'the mulki rules are not valid and operative after the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In any event, they do not revive and cannot be deemed to be valid and operative in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.V.S Narasimha Rao's case [(1970) 1 S.C.R. 115 = AIR 1970 SC 422]. The Full Bench decision in P. Lakshmana Rao's case is thus overruled. W.A. No. 633 of 1970 … will be posted before the Division Bench for further orders.” Thereupon the Division Bench held: “We have already indicated that …… if the decision of the Full Bench is to the effect that the Mulki Rules are not operative, then appeal has to be allowed. … [Accordingly] we allow the appeal…” This decision of the DB of AP High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court* on 3-10-1972, holding Mulki Rules to be valid and operative.This gave rise to a lot of jubilation in the Telangana circles but at the same time generated much heat and discontent in the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. Soon the self-serving leaders, mainly of the Congress Party, of the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions launched a mammoth Jai Andhra movement, demanding that the separate safeguards to Telangana like the mulki rules be totally scrapped or else a separate state for Andhra (including Rayalaseema) be granted. Much violence and bloodshed followed in the wake of the movement but curiously Telangana remained calm and aloof all along. It should be said to the credit of the communists of those days (CPI, CPM and certain ML groups also) that they all along strongly opposed these parochial movements and stood firmly for the unity of the Telugu people. The turmoil in Andhra soon compelled the resignation of the P.V. Narasimha Rao Ministry and President's Rule was imposed in the entire State on 18-01-1973. While the State was under President's Rule, behind-the-scene negotiations went on between the different Telangana leaders, Andhra leaders and the Central Government representatives and finally on the initiative of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a six-point formula was devised to overcome the difficulties, while at the same time keeping up the unity of the State. It was proposed that not only in Telangana but in other regions also local candidates have to be given priority and major quota in education and employment and hence a local area candidacy system has to be introduced. Likewise the backward areas in every region ought to be developed with special care and attention for which a backward areas development commission might be necessitated and that would render any regional committee like the Telangana Regional Committee superfluous. The capital city of Hyderabad was to be kept as a free zone with the entire state divided into 7 zones. Whatever be the merits and demerits of this formula, it finally worked and strangely both the Telangana and Andhra separatist leaders acquiesced in it. For the convenience of the readers the Six Point Formula and the later corrections to it are extracted hereunder:
SIX-POINT FORMULA
[Statement issued by the leaders of Andhra Pradesh on 21st September, 1973.]
We have had several discussions with Central leaders as well as amongst ourselves on the problems facing the people of Andhra Pradesh. We are satisfied that the present misgivings about the future of the State can be completely removed on action being taken in accordance with the following principles :—
(1) Accelerated development of the backward areas of the State and planned development of the State capital with specific resources earmarked for these purposes and appropriate association of representatives of such backward areas in the State legislature along with other experts in the formulation and monitoring of development schemes for such areas should form the essential part of the developmental strategy of the State. Constitution at the State level of a Planning Board as well-as Sub-Committees for different backward areas should be the appropriate instrument for achieving this objective.
(2) Institution of uniform arrangements throughout the State enabling adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of admission to educational institutions and establishment of a new Central University at Hyderabad to augment the exiting educational facilities should be the basis of the educational policy of the State.
(3) Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates should be given preference to specified extent in the matter of direct recruitment to (i) non-gazetted posts (other than in the Secretariat. Offices of Heads of Department, other State level offices and institutions and the Hyderabad City Police) (ii) corresponding posts under the local bodies and (iii) the posts of Tahsildars, Junior Engineers and Civil Assistant Surgeons. In order to improve their promotion prospects, service cadres should be organised to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified gazetted level, first or second, as may be administratively convenient.
(4) A high power administrative tribunal should be constituted to deal with the grievances of services regarding appointments, seniority, promotion and other allied matters. The decisions of the Tribunal should ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The constitution of such a tribunal would justify limits on recourse to judiciary in such matters.
(5) In order that implementation of measures based on the above principles does not give rise to litigation and consequent uncertainity, the Constitution should be suitably amended to the extent necessary conferring on the President enabling powers in this behalf.
(6) The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary.
2. We are convinced that the accelerated development of the backward areas and planned development of the State capital are the major factors which will help in successfully implementing the above principles. We would, therefore, urge upon the Central Government to take a generous view in the matter of financial assistance to the State for the development of these areas.
* * *
CLARIFICATIONS ON 6-POINT FORMULA
[Statement issued by Andhra Pradesh Leaders on 22-10-1973]
We discussed amongst ourselves and the Central leaders the various aspects and implications of the six-point formula which has received overwhelming support from all shades of public opinion in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in the country. The formula was intended to indicate the basic approach to promote the accelerated development of backward areas, a balanced development of the State as a whole and to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public services, with a view to achieve a fuller emotional integration of the people of Andhra Pradesh. It will be for the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of India to formulate specific, comprehensive and practicable schemes in the light of the approach set out in the six-point formula. We, however, appreciate that it would be advantageous to elaborate the more basic aspects of the formula to promote a better understanding of its approach.
2. The formula lays stress on accelerated development of backward areas. We discussed the question whether it would be possible to specify straightaway what the backward areas in the State are. Backward areas will require to be identified in the light of objective factors and in consultation with Planning Commission. This task will have to be left to the popular Government to be completed with utmost expedition.
3. Schemes for development of all such areas will have to be drawn up and resources required for implementing such schemes should be earmarked, not only out of the general resources of the State Plan but also out of the special assistance from the Centre. In the process of preparing suitable schemes as well as earmarking resources, the State Planning Board should necessarily have an important role. The role of the State Board in overall co-ordination between the general Plan Scheme and special programmes for accelerated development of backward areas will also have to be emphasised. It will, therefore, have to be an effective organization consisting of the Chief Minister, some of his colleagues, expert people’s representatives and others.
4. The Committees for the different backward areas should be agencies to assist the Planning Board in the formulation of development schemes for such areas, particularly in regard to matters where knowledge of local conditions is of importance and subsequent monitoring of the implementation of such schemes. These Committees should hence have a substantial number of the representatives of the people familiar with local conditions and problems. The composition of these Committees should, however, be such as to make them business like, compact and knowledgeable,. In order that these Committees enjoy the full support and backing of Government it may be considered if the Chief Minister himself could be their Chairman.
5. Programme in the State Plan to develop the infrastructure of the State will benefit the capital city. Other schemes intended specifically for urban development, housing, water supply, expansion of educational and medical facilities etc., also from part of the State Plan. The formula contemplates that special assistance from the Centre to supplement these programmes would also be available. As the formula emphasised the importance of the planned development of the capital city, Government may also consider the constitution of a suitable Capital Development Authority.
6. Taking into account the broad scope and functions of the Planning Board and its role in co-ordination, it may be advantageous to designate it as Andhra Pradesh Planning and Development Board and its Sub-Committees as Planning and Development Committees for the respective areas. Other details regarding composition for functions, procedures and role of the Committees will have to be left to the Government.
7. In regard to the services the basic approach of the formula is that the people of different areas should have equitable employment and career prospects. The concepts of local candidates and local areas are interrelated because local candidates will be identified with reference to a local area. In specifying any local areas it should not be necessary to go below the level of a district. For recruitment to Class IV posts and posts of L.D.C. and equivalent in district officer, the district will then be the local area. For other categories of posts it would be desirable to group contiguous districts into divisions. We, however, visualise that the State as a whole may consist of five or six divisions, the twin cities including the cantonment being constituted into a separate division.
8. A local candidate can be a person residing in the concerned local area or who has studied in an institution situated in that area leading to the educational qualifications prescribed for the post or a pass in the Matriculation/equivalent examination whichever is lower. In cases where no educational qualifications are at all required, residence can be the only test. In other cases, it may be advantageous to adopt the criterion of study in a local institution. Where necessary either of the criteria could also be adopted ensuring however that a candidate is not regarded as belonging to more than one local area. To obviate hardship, suitable exemptions will require to be formulated. The minimum period of residence or study in a local institution should be reasonable, neither being illusory nor excessive. In the course or our deliberations we found that it should not be difficult to specify such a reasonable, minimum after explaining to the people of the State the different aspects of the problem.
9. The extent of preference for local candidates should in no case be 100%. In case of Class IV posts it can be 80 %. For all other non-gazetted posts the extent of preference should be 70 % and for gazetted posts it should be 60%. It will, however, have to be borne in mind that substantial employment potential may develop in different local areas on account of major development projects. These will have to be equitably shared between different areas in the State and special arrangements for this purpose may be necessary. Suitable remedial measures will have to be devised in cases where the institution of revised administrative arrangements affect the employment of the candidates from the twin cities.
10. In regard to the agency for recruitment, posts entrusted to the State Public Service Commission may continue with the Commission. It will no doubt require separate consideration whether any special measures are called for in regard to the scope, strength, status and efficient functioning of the Commission to enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities. Where any category of posts is excluded from the purview of the Commission it may be advantageous initially to constitute district/divisional committees to make recruitment for such posts.
11. We are satisfied that the six-point formula provide[s] all the necessary policy directives for comprehensive detailed schemes to be drawn up and implemented in due course. The association of the Central Government in the implementation of the six-point formula will make available to the State Government the necessary expertise and national guidance. As soon as a popular Government is restored in Andhra Pradesh the stage would be set for the State and the Centre to take upon themselves without any delay the implementation of the formula. (emphases ours)
It is interesting to note that even after the two powerful Separate Telangana and Jai Andhra movements, the overwhelming opinion in the State as reflected by the above formula accepted by the political leaders of the State belonging to almost all parties/sections shows the urge of the Telugu people to stay united and march towards development. Also it is curious to note that either in the above six-point formula or in the Articles 371D and 371E inserted by the Constitution 32nd amendment in pursuance of that formula or in the Presidential Order 1975 made under Art. 371D, no mention whatsoever was made of the regions of Andhra, Telangana or Rayalaseema but only neutral wording such as zones, local areas or parts of the State was used [see (2009) 2 LAW ISC-143 at 144-146]. From 1975 to 2000, that is for about 25 years, with all its defects the local area candidacy system and the orientation and arrangement for development of backward areas worked and no overt slogans or movement for separate Telangana or Jai Andhra were heard or witnessed anywhere in the State. Especially the emergence of Telugu Desam Party under N.T. Rama Rao, the matinee idol of the Telugu masses, had as though wiped out all regional differences in the State and the word and culture of Telugu was popularized as never before under the rule of NTR. It seemed as if the long cherished unity of the Telugu 'nation' was in the offing thanks to the NTR phenomenon. But not much was done in reality to buttress this image and usher in real flowering of the Telugu language, culture and unity - especially Telugus continued to lag behind in socio-economic development despite the bombastic phraseology of the matinee idol. This inevitably brought down his fall - first to his traditional rivals - the Congress Party and the second time to his own wily son-in-law who proved a better master of the situation than the vainglorious father-in-law. With his fall and later demise, the psychological rapport created under his celluloid spell also ended and the harsh ground realities of stark non-development, neglect and betrayal began to assert in the regional and political contexts. And so, for the first time in the Telugu Desam Party rule, it is only under the Chandra Babu regime that we find a resurrection of the regional discontent and separatist demand.
But this time it is not a voice of the backward and the cheated. It is more the voice of the prosperous and the articulate. It is more the demand for a share in power first and then for power exclusively by a new coterie of self-centred elite of Telangana basking in the sunshine of the considerable development of the region over the 2 to 3 decades since the earlier agitation. However, to hide that reality this new class is inventing and singing the songs of backwardness and betrayal to hoodwink the masses who otherwise may not join their bandwagon. It is not as if the entire saga is a mere figment of imagination - we cannot say that there has not been or there is not any backwardness at all in the region, that there has not been or there is no cheating at all of the people of the region, etc. But it is a case of clear exaggeration of the actuality, a blowing-out-of-proportion, of making mountain of a molehill, of the alleged exploitation, oppression, humiliation and suppression of the Telangana region, its people and its leaders. On the contrary the real facts of the situation are that over the decades, especially keeping in view the very low base, the very backward state under the Nizam Rule with which Telangana had started and with which alone any real comparison of development indices can be made, Telangana has progressed more rapidly than other regions of the State. This has created a very powerful and articulate middle class, which is now espousing the cause of separation in which alone it sees its salvation if it were to ascend to the portals of exclusive power. In a sense this is a problem of affluence and not of poverty - of course relative affluence of a powerful middle class.
Exploitation or Development - Comparative Statistics: I have carefully gone through the different contentions put forth by the separatist votaries and the abundant statistics reeled out by them to buttress such contentions, and have tried to arrive at the true picture by rearranging and real-analyzing, as far as possible, their own statistics. These vested interests do always try to present such statistics in a distorted manner and invariably lack a dialectical and historical perspective. I have only taken a few development indicators, mainly education as an important indicator, and most of the statistics presented here are culled from the books written by votaries of separate Telangana. But I tried to present them in a historically comparative context, re-arranging them suitably in the quest to reveal the real truth behind the scene. The tables given hereunder speak for themselves but I would supplement here and there with some interpretation where necessary for better clarification:
Table A: POPULATION (2001 Census):
ANDHRA PRADESH TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA7,60,77,842 (100%)
3,06,96,566 (40.35%)
3,19,21,302 (41.96%)
1,34,59,974 (17.69%)
At one time, at least till 1981, the population of Telangana was only about 35% of the total State population and it was an accepted norm that Andhra (including Rayalaseema) to Telangana proportion should be taken as 2:1 for almost all purposes. But the population of Telangana increased very fast during the last two decades or so and though the votaries of Separate Telangana tend to attribute this to the migrations from outside (mainly Andhra) the real picture does not bear out the same. But here I do not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect in any further detail.
Table B: PUBLIC LIBRARIES (1999 figures):
--- TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMATOTAL 1595 2081 789
Source: Director of Public Libraries, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
The above figures clearly show that Telangana is proportionately having more than 1/3rd of the total libraries in Andhra Pradesh and this should be no cause for worry. Of course, it can be argued that the total number of libraries itself is insufficient and more and better libraries are needed but that applies to all regions in A.P.
As for literacy rate, the below Tables C and D have to be taken together to gauge the enormous development made in Telangana since 1951 or 1961. Prof. Jayashankar has raised a hue and cry on the issue, concentrating on the Telangana literacy rate being less than the State average but he should have been honest enough to notice that Telangana started with a very low literacy, primarily due to the Nizam's tyranny which suppressed the native language and education of the masses, and comparatively it achieved greater progress. Taking table C one can see that there was 800% increase in literacy rate in Nalgonda since 1951, and more than 400% increase in case of Karimnagar and Adilabad districts since 1961 whereas the increase in Krishna and Kurnool districts of Andhra and Rayalaseema areas is not so spectacular since education was relatively better developed there even in 1951-61. Of course it could be argued 100% literacy rate was not achieved even after 50 years but that applies to the entire state.
Table C: COMPARATIVE LITERACY RATES (1951-1961-2001):
{as % of population}Region 1951 1961 2001
Telangana Nalgonda
Medak
Nizamabad 6.39%
6.50%
5.78% Karim-nagar
Adilabad 13.36%
13.07% Karim-nagar
Adilabad
Nalgonda 56.40%
54.40%
58.20%
Andhra - - - Krishna 35.69% Krishna 69.90%
Rayalaseema - - - Kurnool 24.34% Kurnool 54.40%
Source: C. Srinivas, Jai Andhra - Jai Telangana, Vijayawada, 2004, pp. 111-112.
Table D: COMPARATIVE LITERACY RATES (per 2001 Census):
{as % of population}Region LITERACY RATE
Male Female Total
TELANGANA 69.49 47.77 58.77
ANDHRA 71.38 55.69 63.58
RAYALASEEMA 72.68 48.04 60.53
ANDHRA PRADESH 70.85 51.17 61.11
Source: Prof. K. Jayashankar, Telangana Rashtram: Oka Demand, Godavarikhani, 2004, p.48, as per the figures of Census 2001 and Director of Economics & Statistics, A.P.
Table 1 :- Statistics about Education: Important Details
pertaining to the 3 regions:-
PRIMARY SCHOOLS:pertaining to the 3 regions:-
Type of School TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
Central: 3 7 12
State: 2277 2852 87
Mandal: 15066 20440 11440
Municipal: - 1025 405
Aided (Private): 131 1652 209
Unaided (Private): 441 528 326
TOTAL: 17918 26504 12479
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOLS:
Type of School TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
Central: 2 - 1
State: 291 73 4
Mandal: 2581 1967 1049
Municipal: - 163 55
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOLS:
Aided (Private): 179 275 71
Unaided (Private): 1966 488 655
TOTAL: 5019 2962 1835
HIGH SCHOOLS:
Type of School TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
Central: 17 17 9
State: 552 345 128
Mandal: 2628 2003 975
Municipal: - 178 62
Aided (Private): 381 373 111
Unaided (Private): 1644 448 406
TOTAL: 5222 3364 1691
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS:
Type of School TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
Central: 25 22 5
Unaided (Private): 16 12 2
TOTAL: 41 34 7
JUNIOR COLLEGES:
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
… 1049 1019 381
DEGREE COLLEGES:
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA [excluding Nellore] RAYALASEEMA
[including Nellore]
Government 65 57 54
Private (Aided) 55 93 33
Private (Unaided) 287 236 118
TOTAL 407 386 205
Statistics above as taken (and re-arranged) from the book: Exploitation of Telangana - Separate State is the Only Solution by A. Lokender Reddy, Hyderabad, 2003.
ENGINEERING COLLEGES (2003-2004 figures):
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
University 4 2 2
Private 120 71 23
TOTAL 124 73 25
OTHER PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES (2003-2004 figures):
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
M.B.A. 99 48 14
M.C.A. 158 83 23
B. Pharmacy 15 8 4
Polytechnic 35 46 -
TOTAL 397 185 41+ x
MEDICAL, DENTAL & HOMEO COLLEGES (2003-04):
(Government or University)
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
Medical 3 4 3
Dental 1 1 ---
Homeo 2 2 ---
UNIVERSITIES (2003-2004 figures):
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA
Full-fledged 11 3 7
Table 1 (contd.):- Statistics about Education: Important Details pertaining to the 3 regions:-
Number of Graduates (1998-1999 figures):
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA [excluding Nellore] RAYALASEEMA
[including Nellore]
B.Sc. (Males) 41, 803 46, 240 22, 101
B.Sc. (Females) 26,202 24, 190 12, 127
B.Com. (Males) 35, 131 33, 298 15, 315
B.Com. (Females) 26,074 20, 282 7, 555
TOTAL 1, 29, 210 1, 24, 010 57, 098
Number of Post-Graduates (1998-1999 figures):
Type TELANGANA ANDHRA [excluding Nellore] RAYALASEEMA
[including Nellore]
M.Sc. (Males) 668 1150 Not available
M.Sc. (Females) 522 477 Not available
M.Com. (Males) 560 919 Not available
B.Com. (Females) 452 393 Not available
TOTAL 2, 202 2939 Not available
Source: NET - Commissionerate of Collegiate Education
Looking at the above longish table 1, it is crystal clear that not only Telangana is less developed in these education indicators, but surprisingly it is also more developed in many fields. Compare the number of primary schools or high schools or colleges or universities, everywhere Telangana is today No. 1 in the State. Well then one could still argue that the quality of education imparted is not so standard, the colleges etc. are set up by 'outsiders', etc. but with local area candidacy system, it is clear that it is generally the locals of Telangana that are studying in and benefiting by these institutions. Further there are no statistics to clearly demarcate how many of these institutions are set up by 'outsiders', etc. and anyway it is a general law of development that there would be and has been considerable impetus to development anywhere by 'migrations' and 'outsiders'.
Table 2 (a): Total Number of Educational Institutions:-
Region 1956-57 2001 % GrowthTELANGANA 7657 33, 593 438.72 %
ANDHRA 16, 255 34, 080 209.66 %
RAYALASEEMA
{excluding Chittoor} 4897 11, 396 232.71 %
TOTAL 28, 809 79, 069 274.46 %
Table 2 (b): Total Number of Students:-
Region 1956-57 2001 % Growth
TELANGANA 6, 61, 050 60, 39, 915 913.69 %
ANDHRA 16, 96, 766 50, 30, 886 296.50 %
RAYALASEEMA
{excluding Chittoor} 4, 34, 665 18, 42, 741 423.95 %
TOTAL 27, 92, 481 1, 29, 13, 542 462.44 %
The above two tables 2 (a) and 2 (b) fortify my statement about the enormous progress in education indicators in Telangana and one can see that whereas in terms of total number of educational institutions there has been a four fold increase, in terms of total number of students there has been a nine-fold increase in Telangana region in the four decades from 1956 (since the formation of the united Andhra Pradesh). In contrast, the development in this sphere in Andhra and Rayalaseema (as regards number of educational institutions) is not that spectacular and in terms of absolute figures in 2001 also Telangana has either a clear edge as compared to its population proportion or even an absolute upper-hand (in terms of total number of students) over (coastal) Andhra even.
Table 3: Public Health and Medicine:
(a) Doctors (Allopathic) :Region 1961
(All) 2001
(Government only) Growth
TELANGANA 3053 (22.02%) 4104 (41.79%) Good
ANDHRA 8405 (60.61%) 3811 (38.81%) ---
RAYALASEEMA 2408 (17.37%) 1905 (19.40%) ---
TOTAL 13, 866 (100%) 9820 (100%) ---
3 (b) Government Hospitals :
Region 1955 2002 Growth
TELANGANA 31
(entire Hyderabad State) 163 (43.82%) Very Good
ANDHRA 160 143 (38.44%) ---
RAYALASEEMA 66 (17.74%) ---
TOTAL --- 372 (100%) ---
3 (c) Government Medical Facilities (Allopathic) - 2002 :
Region Hospitals SPECIAL HOSPITALS PHCs Beds Dispensaries
TELANGANA 163 (43.82%) 19 519 (37.45%) 16, 750 (37.45%) 112
(35.11%)
ANDHRA 143 (38.44%) 17 577 (41.63%) 13, 532 (41.63%) 155
(48.59%)
RAYALASEEMA 66
(17.74%) 4 290
(20.92%) 6194
(20.92%) 52
(16.30%)
TOTAL 372
(100%) 40 1386
(100%) 36, 476
(100%) 319
(100%)
3 (d) Government Medical Facilities (Other Therapies) - 2002 :
Region AYURVEDIC UNANI HOMEOPATHY
Dispensaries Doctors Dispensaries Doctors Dispensaries Doctors
TELANGANA 226 (41.09%) 270 (43.62%) 121 (62.37%) 182 (75.21%) 93 (32.86%) 137 (31.14%)
ANDHRA 242 (44.00%) 270 (43.62%) 26 (13.40%) 22 (9.09%) 135 (47.70%) 208 (47.27%)
RAYALASEEMA 82 (14.91%) 79 (12.76%) 47 (24.23%) 38 (15.70%) 55 (19.44%) 95 (21.59%)
TOTAL 550
(100%) 619
(100%) 194
(100%) 242
(100%) 283
(100%) 440
(100%)
The above Table 3 with its four separate categorizations (a), (b), (c) and (d) clearly shows how the Telangana region is in no way inferior to the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions in the field of public health and medicine and how it fast outstripped the progress of those regions as regards the number of allopathic doctors, hospitals, etc. Even in other therapies, Ayurvedic and Unani, Telangana has stood in the first rank whereas it has more than proportionate share of facilities as regards Homeopathy.
Table 4: Total Roads (length in kilometres) :
Region 1961 2001 % GrowthTELANGANA 7628.80 (28.58%) 64, 101 (40.76%) 840.25 %
ANDHRA 19,059.20 (71.42%) 57, 656 (36.6%) 488.79 %
RAYALASEEMA 35, 503 (22.57%)
TOTAL 26, 688 1, 57, 260 589.25 %
Table 5: Elecrification (villages/towns/cities) :
Region 1956 2001 GrowthTELANGANA 10 100% Phenomenal
ANDHRA 545 100% Good
RAYALASEEMA 100%
TOTAL 555 100% Good
[Table 6 is given in the next page]
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL FRONT:
Table 7 (a) : INDUSTRIES:-
Region 1956-57 1982-83 Growth (%)TELANGANA 2709 (33.13%) 17, 693 (43.86%) 653%
ANDHRA 4349 (53.19%) 17, 027 (42.21%) 391%
RAYALASEEMA 1119 (14.68%) 5616 (13.93%) 501%
TOTAL 8177 (100%) 40, 336 (100%) 493%
7 (b) Industries - Capital Outlay:- (in crores of Rupees)
Region 1956-57 1982-83 Growth (%)TELANGANA 0.7742 (33.17%) 29.10 (58.47%) 3758 %
ANDHRA 1.2400 (53.13%) 16.51 (33.17%) 1331 %
RAYALASEEMA 0.3198 (14.70%) 4.16 (8.36%) 1300 %
TOTAL 2.3340 (100%) 49.77 (100%) 2132 %
Table 8: Working of Factories registered under
2m (i) & (ii) of Factories Act (1998-99):
Region Number of Factories Fixed Capital2m (i) & (ii) of Factories Act (1998-99):
[in lakhs of Rupees] Employees
TELANGANA 5266 (39.05%) 10, 45, 599 (40.33%) 5, 60, 616 (66.68%)
ANDHRA 6003 (44.52%) 11, 98, 065 (46.21%) 2, 20, 261 (26.20%)
RAYALASEEMA 2215 (16.43%) 3, 48, 893 (13.46%) 59, 823 (7.32%)
TOTAL 13, 484 (100%) 25, 92, 557 (100%) 8, 40, 700 (100%)
Table 9: Details regarding Commercial Banks (as on 31-03-2003):-
Region Rural Banks Urban Banks* Total Banks Average population per BankTELANGANA 971 (39.81%) 1185 (41.56%) 2156 (40.76%) 17, 500
ANDHRA 1045 (42.92%) 1245 (43.67%) 2290 (43.29%) 16, 000
RAYALASEEMA 423 (17.27%) 421 (14.77%) 844 (15.95%) 17, 000
TOTAL 2439 (100%) 2851 (100%) 5290 (100%) 17, 000 (appt.)
* Urban Banks include semi-urban, urban and metropolitan banks.
Table 6: Power Consumption Category-wise (1999-2000): {in million KWH}
Region LOW TENSION HIGH TENSION TOTALDom1 Agri2 Indus3 Indus4 Irri & others5 LT HT TOTAL
Telangana 2950
(44.51%) 7094
(66.76%) 726
(40.27%) 2797
(61.22%) 533
(30.61%) 10, 814
(56.98%) 3722
(54.78%) 14, 626
(56.75%)
Andhra 2841
(42.86%) 1815
(17.08%) 652
(36.16%) 1367
(29.92%) 766
(44.00%) 5364
(28.27%) 2226
(32.76%) 7501
(29.11%)
Rayalaseema 837
(12.63%) 1717
(16.16%) 225
(23.57%) 405
(8.86%) 442
(25.39%) 2799
(14.75%) 847
(12.46%) 3645
(14.14%)
TOTAL 6628
(100%) 10, 626
(100%) 1803
(100%) 4569
(100%) 1741
(100%) 18, 977
(100%) 6, 795
(100%) 25, 772
(100%)
1. Domestic includes non-domestic; 2. Agricultural includes Public lighting; 3. Industrial here includes cottage industries; 4. Industrial here includes categories I & II and 5. Irrigation and others includes Agriculture, Railway Traction, Electrical Cooperative Societies, Temporary and Colony lighting.
Source: A.P. Transco Ltd., as published in A. Lokendar Reddy, Ibid.
The above tables 4 and 5 are self-explanatory and show how enormously Telangana developed as compared to other regions in Andhra Pradesh. Of course it could always be complained that the length and quality of roads still leave much to be desired and the electrification has not brought in needed development due to low voltage, very less hours of supply in the rural areas, frequent power cuts, etc. but then that is a problem being faced everywhere - at least everywhere in Andhra Pradesh. Table 6 clearly shows as to how Telangana stands first in power consumption, be it low tension electricity for use in domestic, agricultural and cottage industries sectors or high tension electricity for use in medium and heavy industries, railway traction, etc.
Looking at the above tables 7 and 8 regarding the industries as also 9 and 10 regarding the commercial banks in Andhra Pradesh, it is quite clear that Telangana has made enormous progress in industrial as well as commercial development. It even surpasses the progress and development in Andhra region in several of the indicators given thereunder. Obviously Rayalaseema region seems to be the most backward in this regard.
IRRIGATION & AGRICULTURE:Looking at the above tables 7 and 8 regarding the industries as also 9 and 10 regarding the commercial banks in Andhra Pradesh, it is quite clear that Telangana has made enormous progress in industrial as well as commercial development. It even surpasses the progress and development in Andhra region in several of the indicators given thereunder. Obviously Rayalaseema region seems to be the most backward in this regard.
Table 10 (a): Total Irrigated Area (in hectares):
Region 1956-57 1983-84 1996-97TELANGANA 9,12,000 (27.17%) 10,16,000 (34.99%) 7,18,000 (21.69%)
ANDHRA
(including Rayalaseema) 24,45,000 (72.83%) 29,04,000 (65.01%) 25,93,000 (78.31%)
TOTAL 33,57,000 (100%) 39,20,000
(100%) 33,11,000 (100%)
Source: A. Lokendar Reddy, Ibid., p. 154.
Table 10 (b): Total Irrigated Area (in hectares):
Region 1956-57 1997 2001TELANGANA 9,13,883 (27.20%) 20,32,434 (38.41%) 22,41,591 (37.89%)
ANDHRA
(including Rayalaseema) 24,45,567 (72.80%) 32,58,578 (61.59%) 36,74,556 (62.11%)
TOTAL 33,59,450 (100%) 52,91,012 (100%) 59,16,147 (100%)
Source: A. Lokendar Reddy, Ibid., pp. 156-157.
Tables 10 (a) and 10 (b) above, both taken (and of course rearranged) from Lokendar Reddy's book seem to be conflicting. Whereas on the basis of the first table [10 (a)], Lokendar Reddy argues that while the total irrigated area in Andhra region increased by about 1.55 lakhs hectares in 96-97 as compared to 1956-57, that in the Telangana region has decreased by 1.94 lakhs hectares (22%) in the same period, the tables given by him in pp. 156-157 of the same book present a different picture. Table 10 (b) as culled from those tables shows that there has been a continuous increase in the total irrigated area in Telangana too. But as Prof. Jayashankar also argues that the total irrigated area, as also the total cultivated area in Telangana decreased considerably in 2002 as compared to 1956, this point needs a closer scrutiny. If it is found correct, it is to be very much regretted and condemned, and of course speedily remedied. But somehow it seems quite improbable that whereas almost everywhere in the country the irrigated area has in general increased, and food crops production as also other agricultural production has consistently gone up in all these decades, it should decrease in Telangana area alone. And as for sources of water for irrigation, we know that rivers are a major source and two major rivers - Krishna and Godavari - flow through Andhra Pradesh and finally into the Bay of Bengal forming the vast and fertile delta areas of Krishna-Godavari Basin in coastal Andhra. The votaries of Separate Telangana complain that while the catchment area of the Krishna River is the maximum in Telangana, the allocation of waters for irrigation is not accordingly done, as shown by the following table:
Table 11: Krishna Waters – Catchment area,
water claims and allocations in the 3 regions:
Category Telangana Andhra Rayalaseemawater claims and allocations in the 3 regions:
Catchment area proportion 68.5% 13.1% 18.4%
Water claim as per catchment area 553.88 TMC 104.65
TMC 147.47
TMC
Water allocations as done at present 277.86 TMC 388.44
TMC 133.7
TMC
So, it is contended that the coastal Andhra region is utilizing about 280-290 TMC of Krishna waters more than its due proportion and that is great injustice to Telangana as also Rayalaseema regions. Likewise the present allocations from Godavari waters are also said to be heavily in favour of the Andhra region. I am not sure whether justice requires that allocations of water should be exactly in proportion to the catchment area or should also take into other factors like availability and customary use of arable land, the variety of crops grown in different regions etc., but insofar as the actual allocations point out to much discrepancy, I think after a careful study and analysis of the various factors involved, the imbalance needs to be corrected at the earliest and justice be done to both Telangana and Rayalaseema regions without further delay.
Table 12 (a) : Agricultural crops' yields in 1956-61 (in pounds per acre):
Crop TELANGANA ANDHRA including Rayalaseema State AveragePaddy 711 (Karimnagar) 1392 (Guntur) 1085
Wheat 131 (Hyderabad)
76 (Nalgonda) 533 (W. Godavari)
541 (Kadapa) 219
Millets 303 (Nalgonda)
305 (Mahaboobnagar) 784 (Srikakulam)
755 (Chittoor) 458
Pulses 70 (Karimnagar) 272 (Krishna) 184
Table 12 (b) : Agricultural crops' yields in 1995-96 (in kilos per acre):
Crop Telangana Andhra Rayalaseema State AveragePaddy 2249 2663 2463 2498
Wheat 752 --- 794 732
Jowar 685 747 893 731
Maize 2594 2866 2585 2630
Castor 270 257 257 269
Sugarcane 7031 7110 8441 7303
Cotton 206 351 282 259
Tobacco 2197 915 --- 1027
Ulavalu 360 354 301 351
Pesalu 411 408 497 411
Table 12 (c): Area-wise cultivation of certain Cereals (2000-2001):
(area in hectares)
Region Rice Jowar Bajra MaizeTelangana 15, 47, 985
(36.49%) 5, 32, 239
(78.63%) 45, 381
(31.58%) 4, 49, 286
(85.15%)
Andhra 23, 82, 584
(56.16%) 15, 567
(2.30%) 62, 464
(43.47%) 71, 129
(13.48%)
Rayalaseema 3, 12, 157
(7.35%) 1, 29, 162
(19.07%) 35, 859
(24.95%) 7252
(1.37%)
TOTAL 42, 42, 726 (100%) 6, 76, 928
(100%) 1, 43, 704
(100%) 5, 27, 667
(100%)
The above tables 12 (a) and 12 (b) clearly show that per acre yields of agricultural crops in Telangana have very much improved over the last four decades as compared to the lower level of such yields at the time of the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Telangana has even overtaken Andhra in per acre yields of certain crops. Table 12 (c) shows the area-wise cultivation of certain cereals in 2000-2001, where again Telangana is in a comfortable position as compared to the other two regions of the State.
I am supplementing the above statistics with some more supplied by an eminent educationist which fortify my contentions. The relevant tables and graphs are given in the next three pages and are self-explanatory.
Backwardness and Sustainable Development:In the background of all these statistical details, it would be highly unjust for Telangana people themselves to project a picture of stark backwardness of the region. The real truth is that Telangana is developing fast and sufficiently fast in many spheres. Of course, there has been injustices done to Telangana and backwardness still prominent in some fields, but that does not warrant a total pessimistic approach. That way there are many backward regions in Andhra and Rayalaseema also, which are more backward than any backward regions of Telangana. For example, Anantapur District in Rayalaseema is suffering from serious drought for decades and its development is so low and insufficient that the problem has aggravated over the years and certain areas are becoming virtual deserts. Likewise Srikakulam District in Andhra is one of the most backward districts in the entire state. Well, with forests fast depleting in Telangana and the ground water falling to lower and lower levels, we should note that the danger of desertification is there in this region also and so does the increasing salinity of soil in certain delta areas in Andhra due to the present intense cultivation with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. posing such danger therein also. Hence we should view the problems in realistic perspective and try to cope with those dispassionately, scientifically and for the benefit of all Telugus without falling prey to narrow parochial considerations.
Also when I am talking of development, one should not misunderstand that I am supporting this LPG economy oriented, oligarchic policy of development at the cost of the masses and environment. But what I am bringing to light is that within the present whatever development scenario in the country, the development criteria as adopted at present which hold good uniformly to all regions have to be taken into consideration. And on doing so the development indicators for Telangana are not in anyway inferior to those of Andhra and Rayalaseema regions and so in the current paradigm, in several fields Telangana cannot be adjudged backward at all. As for the real development desirable for the people in general, I am a strong advocate of sustainable development, which protects and promotes environment, human concerns and socio-economic justice - for a development oriented towards 'socialism with human face'. But then it is a problem affecting, and an ideal to be fought for, the entire country.
Table No. 13: Schools in different regions of A.P.:
S. No. District No. of Primary Schools No. of U.P. Schools No. of High Schools Total No. of Schools1955-56 2006-07 % Growth 1955-56 2006-07 % Growth 1955-56 2006-07 % Growth 1955-56 2006-07 % Growth
1. Srikakulam 2268 2572 13.40 2 927 46250.00 43 452 951.16 2313 3951 70.82
2. Vizianagaram … 2370 ... … 521 … … 372 … … 3263 …
3. Visakhapatnam 1679 3170 88.80 5 717 14240.00 34 571 1579.41 1718 4458 159.49
4. East Godavari 2341 3232 38.06 12 905 7441.67 65 814 1152.31 2418 4951 104.76
5. West Godavari 1810 2559 41.38 4 491 12175.00 62 540 770.97 1876 3500 91.36
6. Krishna 2034 2563 26.01 7 886 12557.14 95 596 527.37 2136 4045 89.37
7. Guntur 2939 2914 - 10.85 16 591 3593.75 130 568 336.92 3085 4073 32.03
8. Prakasham … 2962 … … 569 … … 511 … … 4042 …
9. Nellore 1924 2903 50.88 8 744 9200.00 50 505 910.00 1982 4152 109.49
10. Chittoor 1723 4389 154.73 7 1007 14285.71 34 826 2329.41 1764 6222 252.72
11. Kadapa 1501 3185 112.19 2 659 32850.00 28 675 2310.71 1531 4519 195.17
12. Anantapur 1222 3052 149.75 5 997 19840.00 34 614 1705.88 1261 4663 269.79
13. Kurnool 1634 2000 22.40 3 992 32966.67 43 572 1230.23 1680 3564 112.14
Andhra and Rayalaseema region 21075 37871 79.70 71 10006 13992.96 618 7616 1132.36 21764 55493 154.98
14. Mahabubnagar 1166 2852 144.60 20 1005 4925.00 5 765 15200.00 1191 4622 288.08
15. Ranga Reddy … 2469 … … 877 … … 1198 … … 4544 …
16. Hyderabad 1010 1431 41.68 59 466 689.83 66 1088 1548.48 1135 2985 163.00
17. Medak 856 2066 141.36 10 740 7300.00 3 634 21033.33 869 3440 295.86
18. Nizamabad 610 1677 174.92 10 653 6430.00 3 620 20566.67 623 2950 373.52
19. Adilabad 752 3134 316.76 10 828 8180.00 3 650 21566.67 765 4612 502.88
20. Karimnagar 957 2570 168.55 16 1022 6287.50 4 1111 27675.00 977 4703 381.37
21. Warangal 910 2836 211.65 19 837 4305.26 10 1014 10040.00 939 4687 399.15
22. Khammam 524 2457 368.89 7 778 11014.29 3 578 19166.67 534 3813 614.04
23. Nalgonda 893 2709 213.44 8 611 7537.50 4 921 22925.00 905 4331 378.56
Telangana Region 7678 24291 216.37 159 7817 4816.35 101 8579 8394.06 7938 40687 412.56
Andhra Pradesh Total 28753 62162 116.19 230 17823 7649.13 719 16195 2152.43 29702 96180 223.82
Source: Statistical Abstract 1956 and Directorate of School Education (Courtesy: JVR)
(to be continued)
NOTE: We regret to state that the tables here have not come out in the original format and we regret the inconvenience to the readers - IMS.
