#642717, This is not at all a wastage of time. The framers of our Constitution did not simply put Adjournment Motion, Censure Motion and No-confidence Motion into our Constitution. There is lot of meaning in it. At the time of framing the Constitution, there were no bigger parties other than Congress. At the time approval of the Constitution, most of the members of the Constituent Assembly were from Congress and the Government at the Centre was also Congress. If the members of the Constituent Assembly had thought that there would be danger for their Government in future, they could have removed these motions from the Parliamentary procedures of the Constitution. There isn't any rule that opposition can't introduce these motions if Government has absolute majority. It also means that some important issues need to be discussed.
#642689, There may not be Constitutional provision for special status, but 11 states are still enjoyiong it. You have to understand how Andhra Pradesh got divided. 30-40 percent of revenues of the undivided Andhra Pradesh was coming from Hyderabad. Now, Hyderabad has gone to Telangana. People of residual Andhra Pradesh never wanted bifurcation of their State. Most of the people, who established industries in Hyderabad are from Andhra region thinking that Hyderabad is their state capital. Telangana state now opposes giving Special status to Andhra Pradesh because if industrial incentives are given to residual AP, these industrialists will return to their home state. Now, you can understand the grave situation of Andhra Pradesh. Though the state has lot entrepreneurial people, they have not established their industries in their home state. Industrial incentives are must for residual AP in order attract new industries.
If there is no provision which allows giving special status to Andhra Pradesh, then why both Congress and BJP agreed to give special status for 5 years to Andhra Pradesh while bifurcating the state. It may look simple to other state people but not for people of Andhra Pradesh.