Sir, I wish to make a few remarks on this subject as I come from the Rayalaseema districts. If the constitution-makers had provided in this article for maximum and minimum population strength for a seat, as they have done in the case of representation of the States in the People’s House, it would not have been necessary to speak on this occasion at all. You have provided 75,000 as the minimum, but have not set any upper limit. The difference between the Rayalaseema people and the Andhras is only about this. The Ceded districts are famine districts and are known to be so from the beginning of history. They comprise mainly mountainous areas. I represent a constituency or a taluk which is the largest in area or size with the lowest number of people. Even if you fix the minimum at 75,000 population for a seat, the voters of a constituency like mine would have to go 15 miles to the nearest polling booth to exercise their franchise. That is why we want that, on the population basis, the Ceded districts must be given more representation. And they are economically and politically backward. This drawback of the population of the Ceded districts has long ago been recognised and an agreement reached between the Andhras of the Circars and the Rayalaseema people. This arrangement does not affect Mr. Bharathi or the people of Tamil Nad. We are not going to deny the right or representation of Madura to Mr. Bharathi. We are only considering the representation of the Andhra area and whether Rayalaseema should get more and Circars less under the agreement. That is why we request the House to make a provision for upper limit so that in the State that is going to be formed, there may be amicability and agreement. There is no question of Rayalaseema being against the Andhra province. But the difficulty is one of representation. The population of Rayalaseema is 60 lakhs and that of the Circars is 125 lakhs. I request the House to accept the amendment.
