AP STATE CAPITAL-LAND POOLING-ARE THEY AFFECTING THE FARMER COMMUNITY OR THE STAKE HOLDER COMMUNITY AT LARGE? IF SO HOW TO PROCEED FORWARD? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It looks like farmers are not showing interest to handover or sell their agri -lands with their free will for the purpose of building the new capital city. Is there a constitution, which says that capital city must be located at equal distance from the rest of the districts or cities or should be at the centre or middle. If not why Andhra Pradesh State capital should follow this criteria? How many existing states in India are satisfying this criteria currently? Please see the tables prepared as images. Only one of eight coastal states is satisfying this criteria i.e GUJARAT. Rest of the coastal states have made a city near to sea shore as a capital. In that case Vizag has to become CAPITAL. Out of total 29 states, 29-8 = 21 are the states to verify that they too are following the criteria or not Out 21 only about 3 states are satisfying the criteria of keeping the state capital at the middle or some what equal distance. 3/21 = About 14% non coastal states and 1/8= about 12% of the coastal states and over all 4/29 = About 14% of the states are only satisfying this criteria. It means there is 86% evidence that the state capital is not located in the centre or middle of the state. There is 7/8 = About 87% evidence says that the coastal state capital is a city near the sea shore. If there is a citizen free will then there is no problem of deciding the state location.But it looks like people from some villages are not ready to handover their agri-fields. There are many questions that are shooted to the state government by farmer communities in and around the proposed capital area. They are: Why state government requires thousands of acres of agri-land? and its acquisition or pooling just for the sake of conducting governance. They them selves have learnt a lesson from the experience of Hyderabad development,that the development should happen in a distributed manner. In USA Washington DC is an autonomous area from where public administration takes place. White house is built in about 50-70 acres of land, which includes parks and horticulture too. The City of Westminster i.e.the city place of Britians public administration consumes about 5500 acres. But Andhra Pradesh State Government is seeking 30,000 acres (that too agri-land) of land (to build a city like the Westminster i.e. a capital city from where they wanted to conduct state (not even central) public administration. When Andhra Pradesh is identified as an Agricultural state right from the beginning, and when there is a lot of non-agriculture land is available else where, why should there be a need of transforming the green and crop yielding agri-fields to be made into urbanization and industry? by affecting farmers, farmer labor, farmer managers and farmer owners. Compensation does not mean giving other types of lands and money. It should be follow the process of reinstatement. To comment...... There is no need for the son of a rich man either to study or put efforts to do job/employment for income purposes. But still why is he doing? Why the sons of politicians are interested in practicing only the leadership and politics? when they can go for other professions. Why the sons of movie actors and heros are interested to become movie actors and heros in spite of got well educated. Similarly with other professions. If these interests are required to be considered as a natural tendencies and has to be acceptable naturally then why not in the case of farmers. In such case Why the AP government is forcing such agricultural community to get transformed in to a non-agricultural community by offering non-agriculture based benefits as compensation to it? As an alternate to the the state capital that is decided between vijayawada and Guntur, can it be Vizag? Because Vizag is the coastal city that can be considered as a state capital city just like other capital cities of the coastal states of present India. If there is huge mass of farmers who show reluctance and do not agree to voluntarily give away their lands for building the new capital, does it become the act of democracy if the state government enforces the significant population of common people and farmers to get affected to their legitimate decisions made on behalf of the public. It seems that YALAMANCHILI SIVAJI, the farmer leader is talking with high sense. His proposal of hearing the public voice from the public domain is making little sense. However illiterates from poor and uneducated farmer community will not be able to participate in such visualized and network public domains. It is better to conduct voting by gathering their opinions through mobiles and also hearing their voice through web sites and other media in this regard. On the other hand Yalamanchili Sivaji is also conveying the message that the decision on capital has already made, the farmers are now forced to hand over their lands, however the situation for them is now left for conducting negotiations and their demands for compensation. Does this become an act of democracy if state government does not allow the agri community and also general public (stakeholders of that decision) to share voice/opinions on the decision regarding land pooling or acquisition? PUBLIC WELFARE AT LARGE FOR LONGER PERIOD WITHOUT AFFECTING THE SIGNIFICANT POPULATION IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ACT OF PROTECTING THE DEMOCRACY
Posted on: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:42:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015