Itanagar:Civil rights activist and Supreme Court lawyer Vineet Dhanda has blamed the Centre for the poor state of affairs in the sensitive border state of Arunachal Pradesh.
In a PIL admitted in the apex court, Dhanda said the Indo-China border row keeps both nations on tenterhooks. Delhi has woken up from its deep slumber to build infras-tructures and deploy additional forces along the McMahon Line, the PIL states.
After hearing the PIL – Vineet Dhanda Vs Union of India and others – on November 14 last, Chief Justice H L Dutta and justice Arjun Sikri directed to issue notices to Union of India through secretaries of home affairs, department of economic affairs, expen-diture, ministry of finance, department of food and public distribution, ministry of DoNER, FCI, chief secretary of Arunachal Pradesh as respondents.
Identifying with the genuine chronic problems of the land-locked and resource crunch state, the PIL enlisted how the border state has been experiencing repeated intrusions and the threat always looms large while the poor people were deprived of their basic rights for none of their faults.
Dhanda said; “that in the state of Arunachal Pradesh almost all the important projects including building of roads and other basic infrastructure required for bare minimal survival of the residents of the Arunachal Pradesh has come to halt due to the ignorance of the GoI.
Being a border state to three countries – Bhutan, Myanmar and China, the state required more attention and resources to protect its own identity and the sovereignty of our country.
“The neighbouring country China has in the past few years increased its aggression and activities of trespassing into our country but the GoI has not taken any appropriate steps to increase the infrastructure and develop-ment of the state to protect and prevent the future aggression by China.”
The PIL further stated, “There is an exigent situation at present where the GoI needs to provide extra resources to the state of Arunachal Pradesh for ensuring the basic survival of the residents of the state as well as the development of the state at par to other states of the country.
There is an urgent need for the GoI to protect and ensure the fundamental rights enshri-ned under Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India.
There is an exigent need for the GoI to expedite the infra-structural projects of protect the sovereignty of the country from being tres-passed into by the neigh-bouring aggressive coun-tries, like China.
“That the state of Arunachal Pradesh and its people have been not only ignored by the GoI but have also been treated with a bias at par to the other citizens of the country.
‘The Central government in the past has given financial help to many states including UP, WB, Haryana, Maharashtra and now state of J&K in the time of crisis. The state of Arunachal Pradesh and its people are reeling under constant crisis but the GoI has become a mute spectator to the sufferings of the people of Arunachal Pradesh,” the PIL said.
“The GoI on the recommendations of Agriculture Price Com-mission had adopted a policy in 1971-72 to release food grains from the GoI stock to be delivered to principal distribution centre (PDC) in the hill states as food grains had to be moved by road to the interior places of those hilly states for want of rail head or limited rail heads.
The FCI was to open godowns at the PDCs and FCI would reimburse whatever expenses incurred in transportation of the food grains by the state government,’ the petition said, giving the genesis of entire PDS issue and numerous litigations at different courts till date.
Despite inability to pay transport subsidy because of financial crunch that has brought the public distribution system (PDS) to a grinding halt, the state government had to cough off more than Rs.150 crore at the directive of the SC diverting the amount meant for development and survival of the state, the petitioner said to drive home his message.
The matter was argued by advocate Vineet Dhanda before the bench of Chief Justice H L Dutta and Justice Arjun Sikri, advocate N A Usamani represented the respondent during the hearing. (UNI)
