 "Shrihari Aney")
Shreehari Aney, who stepped down as advocate general of Maharashtra recently, tells Sanjay Jog he has launched a movement for a separate Vidarbha state and a Marathwada state.
What prompted you to resign?
The decision to resign was based on two factors: conflict of duty or interest; and institutional stability. As advocate general (AG) of Maharashtra, I found it difficult to defend the state in areas relating to problems in agriculture, water and cattle feed; for its failure to complete irrigation projects; and for the siphoning off of funds.
I found the bureaucracy reluctant to provide answers. The answers I was given were unsatisfactory. A good lawyer ought not to have personal attachment to the subject matter he is arguing for. I term this a conflict of duty. I found that while defending the government I was critical of it. My criticism, though constructive, was interpreted as criticism of the government. Ministers at a particular level and very senior bureaucrats were put to some embarrassment. In that there was a kind of conflict.
The ongoing disruption began after I spoke on the demand for Marathwada. My speech in support of statehood for Vidarbha elicited a similar reaction. The fallout of my speech was that elements in the ruling alliance (Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiv Sena) might not have voted for the Budget. The failure of the Budget has legal consequences. If a cut motion is passed the government has to resign. I was not prepared to commit that sin. Submitting my resignation was a way of saying that the legislature does not get affected because of my public speeches. This is what I meant by institutional stability. The institutions must remain.
Is it true that you stepped down after the chief minister's diktat?
The chief minister never told me to resign; it was my personal decision. In fact, when I went to meet the CM he asked me not to resign, saying that he would tide over the situation, that it could be dealt with politically. I am sure he had made his calculations. However, I told him, "You can do it today but I will not keep quiet and similar situations will arise again in the Monsoon session and later."
When I handed over my resignation to the governor, the first thing he told me was: "Who will defend the government if you go out of office?" To which I said, "There are enough people to defend..."
You have been an ardent supporter of Vidarbha state. Why did you choose to demand statehood for Marathwada when the Assembly session was on?
I spoke a month and a half ago at a public meeting in Ahmednagar demanding statehood for Marathwada. The Shiv Sena raised the issue then in its usual style. An editorial was written at the time, so they were aware of it. Why did they choose to use it as a trigger to again disrupt the House?
I did speak publicly in Jalna last week and did say that Marathwada should be a separate state, as it suffers more than Vidarbha. Its condition is worse than Vidarbha's. This is a fact, not an assumption. I also told the audience to build up a movement along the lines of Vidarbha: Unless you have a movement you are not going to get the state.
This time, not just the Shiv Sena but all parties, including the Congress, the Nationalist Congress Party and smaller parties, joined the chorus demanding action against me.
I think the timing was equally bad for them. Why did they (Shiv Sena) not create a movement demanding the AG's expulsion before the Assembly session started? Why was a notice not submitted to the Speaker that they wanted to move a resolution against the AG? Why are you shooting the messenger? Is it not the message I carry that needs to be considered? Marathwada is deprived; it suffers from problems worse than Vidarbha and it is something that is not even being looked at. Why can't you even think? Throw out your AG or whoever you want, but at the end of the day, consider what people are saying.
Is the time opportune to hold a referendum or a plebiscite on statehood for Vidarbha?
People say, "Why don't you have a movement like Telangana where you demonstrate with your demands?" Why should people like Sharad Pawar say, "We do not see a rationale for the demand for Vidarbha's statehood"? Why should Rajnath Singh say, "There is no movement, so we don't see any reason to consider the statehood demand"? Do you want to see bloodshed as was seen in Telangana where more than 1,200 students below the age of 20 died to create a new state?
The Constitution tells you that this is a demand and it is to be established. Then, have the courage to take a plebiscite. We have the courage to say that if we do not get 51 per cent in favour of statehood for Vidarbha we will give up the movement. There is a movement - whether people want it or not.
Are you disappointed with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for dilly-dallying over Vidarbha state?
In the context of Vidarbha, the Congress government did not do anything. Still ,the Congress has support although the BJP has now gained ground. The Congress did not give Vidarbha statehood despite its promise. The BJP is doing the same. That is why I am comparing the BJP with the Congress and I am disappointed with both.
At the national level, the BJP considers Maharashtra a political unit in which it sees the role of Bombay as pivotal to economic dominance over the nation. He who controls Bombay controls the finances of the nation. That is why the Congress could not create Vidarbha; now the same goes for the BJP's reluctance.
Interestingly, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Republican Party of India and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) have today all lined up to support Vidarbha. Personally, and also through the National Federation of Smaller States, I am working with these parties. We are approaching other parties to seek their support for Vidarbha state. We expect them to take a stand on Vidarbha in Parliament. The creation of Vidarbha state is not in Maharashtra's hand, therefore, we are investing in those parties which can change equations in Parliament.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh spokesman M G Vaidya has made a case for the division of Maharashtra into four parts. What is your take on this?
The RSS spoke through Vaidya, who has been advocating for Vidarbha state for a long time. He is now advocating a four-way division, which is to be noted. I strongly feel Delhi must take Vaidya's statement seriously. This means he is trying to tell Delhi: "please act now".
Since you have raked up the Marathwada statehood demand after the one for Vidarbha, critics allege that you nurture political ambitions. Is that the case?
I do not think so. I am 65 years old. I have a reasonably healthy legal practice. I am not from the Congress or the BJP, but do point out their mistakes. It would be foolish for me to enter the political arena. Politics can never be an end; my end is the creation of Vidarbha.
Apart from the Vidarbha movement, what is your agenda?
I strongly feel that courts must work 365 days a year. I am in the midst of seeking the support of Bar associations so that, to start with, the Bombay High Court functions for 365 days, barring Saturdays, Sundays and declared holidays. This can bring about changes in other states, too.
The other agenda is to introduce some conscious control over this practice of disrupting legislatures and Parliament. I plan to lead a movement to raise awareness at the national level.
