Monday, May 05, 2008

Telangana VI: Hyderabad State?

When some commenters asked me whether I would be opposed to a separate Hyderabad state, I said, ‘No! I wouldn’t be opposed’.

That doesn’t mean I would encourage it in the present crisis. What I meant by that is - if such a case arises in future, I wouldn’t be opposed to it just for the heck of opposing every separation.

In the current context, a demand for separate Hyderabad state away from Telangana is quite ridiculous and it only exacerbates the animosity that Telangana people are developing towards the rest of Andhra state. It is clear from this demand for a separate Hyderabad state that the people of Rest of Andhra state are just not willing to give up Hyderabad to Telangana. They are coming up with all kinds of excuses to thwart all attempts to grant Telangana a separate statehood because it involves letting go of Hyderabad. Let’s make this clear for all of us - they have no affinity or love for the people of Telangana or its fate. They are least bothered about it. These are the very same reasons why many people of Telangana want a separate state.

So, what’s so right about Telangana people asking for Hyderabad?

To begin with, you would think that such a ridiculous proposition - that Hyderabad is separated from Telangana - would never arise. But then, this is India. All kinds of idiots live here. And hence we are forced into entertaining such ludicrous propositions and give them merit, to such an extent that I have to devote some time writing about it on my blog.

Wasn’t the thought of creating a Pakistan in the middle of South India (converted from a Nizam State) a ridiculous proposition? Wouldn’t the demand by Pakistan that they get New Delhi since their ancestors and forefathers were the ones who invested in that city to make it a grand city have been a ridiculous proposition?

Telangana has its own culture and tradition and has its own history which is not necessarily linked to rest of Andhra. Yes, language is the binding factor. But just because the language is binding factor, do we ask for a single Hindi state in North India?

Hyderabad is heart and soul of Telangana. It is a city that is formed out of Telangana and has its richness and culture that have the same history and fate as Telangana. And most important of all, it lies inside Telangana and is built on the land of Telangana, and belongs to people of Telangana.

Can the immigrants of a land ask for a separate status by flooding a city or a piece of land? Isn’t the basic premise for plebiscite in Kashmir is based on restoring the original status by removing the migrants from the picture?

Look at Bangalore. It is a home to many people from different parts of India. Many people have immigrated to this place and made it their home. Imagine if in future, people of Bangalore demand for a separate state for themselves. How should the immigrants of a place play role in deciding the fate of this city? Just because Karnataka has been welcoming many immigrants to its capital city, should it now let go of this state just because the immigrants want to create a new state out of Bangalore.

Imagine the immigrants of Mumbai cutting the city away from Maharashtra or Bangladeshi immigrants cutting away Kolkata from West Bengal. Imagine if the immigrants were to separate every city from its state.

Just because your forefathers have invested in a city does not make it yours. If that is case, half of New Delhi should belong to England, and the other half to Pakistan.

Hyderabad has always been a part of Telangana, and it lies within the confines of Telangana sharing no border with Rayalaseema or Coastal Andhra. Hence there should be no debate on where it belongs.

As much as Warangal or Karimnagar belongs to Telangana, Hyderabad belongs to Telangana. Just because it welcomes many people from other region to settle down there should not be a reason for allowing it break away from its own region.

All this discussion about creating a separate Hyderabad reeks of the same selfishness, greed and avarice the people of Telangana attribute to the rest of Andhra. A demand for separate state for Hyderabad by its immigrants has its roots in the same reasons why Telangana is impoverished, underdeveloped and poor.

Legitimizing this new demand is tantamount to further exacerbating the plight of Telangana, depriving them of their access to opportunity and development, furthering their situation which has brought its fate to this threshold – where they demand a separate state.

The demand for a separate state for Hyderabad is seeped in the same hypocrisy, the same selfishness, the same unwillingness to give access to other peoples of other kinds, the same avarice to keep accumulating the access to wealth and opportunity for oneself, not ready to share it others.

I reject the demands for a separate state for Hyderabad completely. First, the state of Telangana has to be formed. Later, in a completely new discussion, at a later time, the fate of Hyderabad can be decided. If the immigrants are bent on carving the city out of this region, then it will be up to future Telangana to decide.

The way whether North-east becomes a new nation or not is not a topic of discussion with China, Pakistan or Bangladesh, this is not a topic of discussion that we like to hold with Rest of Andhra. They are no party to it.

Related Posts: Telangana - A New State, Telangana II, Telangana III, Telangana IV, Telangana V: Political angle.

55 comments:

  1. Foot_Dalo_Raaj_KaroMay 05, 2008 7:18 PM

    Sujai said: half of New Delhi should belong to England, and the other half to Pakistan.

    This is one of the best statements I heard in the recent past :). Keep it up! I love Sujai-logic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pro T-state guys need to go back to the basics and have to start working on the real issue, 'the backwardness of the region'. Identify the regions that are backward and concentrate on productive issues to make the land prosperous. You can leave Hyderabad as its already well developed.

    I think my views are unbiased which can benefit both Telangana and Telangana Andhraites.

    What say guys ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Just because your forefathers have invested in a city does not make it yours"

    Hey Sujai, being a Telugu, if you buy a flat in Bangalore, does'nt that belong to you ?

    And you are speaking of forefathers, from where did your forefathers come, did they popped out from Telangana Earth ? Understand they too were once new to this region as migrators.

    You cannot claim the ownership of Telangana nor can I claim ownership for Andhra, Im an Indian and I belong to all of India, even Telangana and so are you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rajeev:

    Hey Sujai, being a Telugu, if you buy a flat in Bangalore, does'nt that belong to you ?

    I am not sure if your question is a sincere attempt to understand my statement below or if you are just ‘trying to be smart’. Giving you the benefit of doubt, I will continue to answer:

    I said: Just because your forefathers have invested in a city does not make it yours.

    I was referring to the city, not to the property you buy. When you buy something in a city or a region or a nation, you expect that city/region/nation to protect your assets giving you certain assurances, legal recourses, constitutional protections, etc. And that is the reason why people tend to invest in those other regions. Like, Vodafone and many international companies have invested in India, and these investments started to happen only when India put legal and legislature structure in place to protect their investments. Nowadays, many foreign companies invest in Indian road building activities, metro rail projects, real estate contracts, etc.

    But none of these investments allow these investors to own the country, region, or the city they invest in. I mean, Intel, TI, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, etc, cannot make a case for owning up Bangalore just because they have invested in that city. The city belongs to the people of the land and not the investors. If ever there is a slight indication that these investors will demand to secede a region from India using their argument that ‘look, our investments have made this region prosperous’, India would stop all such investments right away and kick them out of the country the very next minute.

    In the same way, let me discuss the immigration issue. Many people from Mexico have migrated to California, and now they are the majority in that state. However, that immigration does not come with a right to accede California to Mexico. The day the people of Mexican-origin people demand secession from USA or accession of that state to their parent nation Mexico, USA would step in to stop all immigration, and may be, even reverse that immigration.

    You cannot claim the ownership of Telangana nor can I claim ownership for Andhra…

    People of certain land who have lived there for generations can claim ownership of that land vis-à-vis people of other lands, the way we Indians lay claim to certain regions vis-à-vis claims of China or Pakistan. Czech, Slovakia, Armenia, and hundreds of regions, have got their nations by claiming those lands based on their ancestry. Your argument that nobody can claim ownership to a certain piece of land is quite childish. Even the basic tenets of UN guarantee people’s claim to a certain land based on ancestry.

    Im an Indian and I belong to all of India, even Telangana and so are you.

    That way you belong to whole of planet. Do you (sitting here in India) put a stop to people of Slovenia seeking separate nationhood saying that you also belong to Slovenia?

    You need to understand that India also has federal structure. A region within India can make laws to protect the interests of its people. In that federal character a person of a certain region enjoys more privileges compared to an immigrant – and this is possible all within the borders and legal structure of India.

    Thanks.
    Sujai

    ReplyDelete
  5. People of certain land who have lived there for generations can claim ownership of that land vis-à-vis people of other lands, the way we Indians lay claim to certain regions vis-à-vis claims of China or Pakistan.

    This is touché :). Good to see you back in form Sujai. Oh so sad we are claiming Pakistan's land. Your heart is aching I could see. You have already given New Delhi to Pakistan - what else are you planning to gift?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the same way, let me discuss the immigration issue. Many people from Mexico have migrated to California, and now they are the majority in that state. However, that immigration does not come with a right to accede California to Mexico.

    And Mr Sujai who are the people who built California and the US - are they not "immigrants"? What would you say to the "Native American Indians" (the "original" Americans who Columbus found) who would like to "claim" back their land and send all the American immigrants back to England, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Russia. Your statement is doomed by its own logic. You make even lesser sense than Lou Dobbs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sujai
    I think that there is a problem with the ancestry argument you are making to be 'people of the land'. How many generations should pass before immigrants become 'people of the land'?

    Again, while it may make some sense at a social level, it starts to break down at the individual level. Even when a person grows up in a certain place from the age of 4 or 5, by the time he reaches maturity, he wears the identity of the place. There is no other place that he can call his.

    ~ Vinod

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sujai,

    If a baby is born in US to a Indian family (who went to US on H1) becomes citizen of US then how come a baby born to a andhra family who settled in hyderabad for job purpose is non-localite to hyderabad ?

    Now going by this logic Does the andhra guy is immigrant or Local to telangana ? To my knowledge he surely belongs to hyderabad and have rite to ask for hyderabad.
    If these guys ask for Hyderabad whats wrong in it ?

    I think if a state is getting divided let the people of state decide how many parts they want.We can't do partition of a state on regular basis.Tomorrow if someone come and ask for some other part we again go to BLOGS of this kind and
    shout at each other.If we say we shud respect Telangana people feelings and shud not hurt them let the same priniciple continue thru out the state.If we don't follow, it only shows our double standards and clearly shows our fight is for hyderabad and not for Telangana.

    ~Venu

    ReplyDelete
  9. Durjai:
    You have already given New Delhi to Pakistan - what else are you planning to gift?

    I did not gift New Delhi to Pakistan. On the other hand, I claimed it for India. I asked -wouldn’t the demand for New Delhi by Pakistan a ridiculous one?

    Your energies will be spent better if you read the topics in its entirety. Actually, it really pains me when people don’t use the department housed in their skulls.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vinod:
    Yes, there is a problem with ancestry argument. It is very subjective. And there are no clear cut rules for it. Hence, it is used in relative measure.

    It does NOT work at an individual level, the way reservations do not work at individual level. It works only at group level, the way reservations work at group level. A sense of identity is used to determine nation-states – whether you like it or not. Bosnians, Croatians, Slovaks, Armenians, Kazakhs, Uzbekhs, etc, are all groups. At an individual level, it’s very hard to determine who is part-Russian, part-Georgian?

    Muslims were not a monolithic group when Pakistan was formed out of Indian sub-continent. Yet, Jinnah represented that monolithic group. A few years later, that group itself got divided into Bengalis on the East and other groups on the West. Hence, a need for another nation-state.

    You see that the present day Europe has come about after a long turmoil of such clashes of identities. Bloody wars kept drawing the national boundaries for centuries.

    So, is the end result always a breakup? Not really. Some groups may see additional benefit being together than being separate. European Union, or Unification of Germany are some of the examples. Some new states may join USA in future. Goa, Sikkim have joined India after its Independence.

    But it is for each individual group to decide what they want to do with their future – one group cannot impose it onto another group to join them.

    Unfortunately, we live in that world, where you bargain for certain rights and privileges as groups, not as individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Venu:

    how come a baby born to a andhra family who settled in hyderabad for job purpose is non-localite to hyderabad ?

    The person born to Andhra family who settled in Hyderabad should be ‘localite’ for all legal purposes. If it is not, then there is something grossly wrong with Telangana.

    To my knowledge he surely belongs to hyderabad and have rite to ask for hyderabad.
    If these guys ask for Hyderabad whats wrong in it ?


    You are now mixing two things here. Being local does not mean he represents the group. Identities are different compared to the legal status. A Catholic person migrated from Poland to India could be Indian, but he does not represent Rajasthani group or a Telugu group. He may not represent Sikh or Jain group.

    Many British citizens worked with Gandhi during Indian Independence Movement, however, they did not represent Indian group. We did not take the opinion of the British living in India on whether they want to carve a little nation for themselves out of India. And some of those British were born in India. They got their rights, but they did not get their cities carved into countries.

    I think if a state is getting divided let the people of state decide how many parts they want. We can't do partition of a state on regular basis.

    Absolutely. The people of Andhra can decide what they want to do with Andhra, whether they want to divide it up into two parts or three parts. It’s up to people of Rayalaseema to decide what they want to do – whether they want to create each new district as a state or entirely join Andhra.

    As far as people of Telangana are concerned, they want to form a single entity (for now), called Telangana.

    Using the immigrants to break up a city away from the state is not a healthy practice. In Bangalore, the immigrants comprise a higher percentage compared to the Kannada people. Does it make sense to create a new state out of Bangalore? The same reasoning applies to breaking away Mumbai from Maharashtra. Tomorrow, when Maharashtra is divided, Vidharba will not get Mumbai only because it does not house Mumbai geographically.

    Should we allow immigrants of every city to have a say in the local politics to decide whether they can break away that city from the state?

    Tomorrow if someone come and ask for some other part we again go to BLOGS of this kind and shout at each other.

    First, the discussion of Telangana without Hyderabad is not acceptable.

    Just because immigrants were allowed to make it a home does not make it a reasonable demand to create a separate state out of Hyderabad. Telangana insisted from the inception that it wanted to be separate. The creation of Andhra Pradesh was marred by death of protestors who protested against joining Telangana with Andhra. From the very beginning, Telangana saw itself a distinct unit. Even the SRC recommended that Telangana could be separate state. And in all those discussions Hyderabad was always an integral part of Telangana.

    The creation of Hyderabad as a Union Territory or a new state can be taken up when certain measures are already taken to uplift Telangana and its people and when its people are ready to let it go.

    The blogs do not determine the outcome of such struggles. Such struggles are taken up on the ground, by the people of Telangana, which is currently underway. My attempt was only to explain it.

    If we don't follow, it only shows our double standards and clearly shows our fight is for hyderabad and not for Telangana.

    Fight FOR Telangana includes Hyderabad. It is not a fight FOR Hyderabad. The way the new nation called India included New Delhi, the new state called Telangana includes Hyderabad. It is not a fight FOR Hyderabad, the way it was not a fight FOR New Delhi.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sujai,
    The way whether North-east becomes a new nation or not is not a topic of discussion with China, Pakistan or Bangladesh, this is not a topic of discussion that we like to hold with Rest of Andhra. They are no party to it.

    But it is for each individual group to decide what they want to do with their future – one group cannot impose it onto another group to join them.

    My ancestors and relatives are living in a village for the last so many years. We want our village as separate state. Others who are living outside the village are no party to it, we don't want to discuss this issue with them. Group of people living outside my village cannot impose their decisions on our group. Sujai we need your support for our cause.

    Just for a joke. Don't get anger. I don't understand why you abuse people so much if they talk against Telengana

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sujai

    Thanks for the clarification. I think I have some difficulty when identities are taken to the level of a group. It starts to lose a concrete basis, in general. But perhaps it still makes a lot of sense when the identity as a group is by a common suffering. That changes things. If I may work with the analogy you gave of the British, it starts to get clearer. The British in India during pre-independence days cannot quite be said to be suffering the same as the Indians despite being born and raised in India. Hence they cannot be 'of the land' in that sense. It is not a suffering that has passed through their generations. To this limited extent, the ancestry argument works.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  14. Vinod:
    Since we have grown up in India where every allegiance to a group is derided, we tend to dismiss all rationalizations which posit group's expectations and bargaining power calling it 'group politics'.

    One needs to understand that when a state or a majority or privileged group discriminates the others, it does so based on one's group identity.

    Though the discrimination, subjugation, marginalization is felt by an individual, the actual phenomenon is happening at a group level.

    Civil laws, rights, etc, protect the individual, but it is very tough when one group competes against the other, because even the system that is supposed to protect the individual is now infused with the same group politics.

    Look at the case in Bosnia, Croation, Serbia, Kosovo. The individuals were targeted, killed, maimed and raped. Nobody saw each individual by their merit or tried to find out if they had an allegiance to a political outfit or not. It was indiscriminate, but not as indiscriminate as you think. It was highly discriminatory at a group level. All people of certain group were targeted irrespective of their actual positioning or allegiance.

    In such situations, one group fights the other to protect the entire group.

    An Indian soldier on the border protects all Indians, he does not protect just Hindus or just Punjabis. He is representing the group called 'Indians' against another group called 'Pakistanis'.

    One cannot do away with such group identities whether we like it or not.

    Recently, a not-so-well-off cousin of mine from Telangana was confessing why he speaks Andhra Telugu though he lives in Hyderabad.

    When I asked him why he had to feign off as an Andhra, he said his sons would not get admission in the school. If he spoke Telangana or said he was Telangana, he was quite sure his sons would not get admission.

    He lied to the school authorities, spoke Andhra Telugu, and said he was from Coastal Andhra and thus got his sons admission.

    The marginalization and discrimination is working at group level but felt directly at individual level.

    The bargaining power can be achieved only through group politics - unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Abhi:
    Smart one. Almost.
    I really wish my readers understood the gist instead of making seemingly-funny but not-so-funny analogies.

    Unnecessarily, I have to waste my time.

    When your village wants to get its status as a separate state, it has to bargain its position with the higher up authorities, such as the district, the state or the country, or the UN.

    When India wanted to get its independence, it had to bargain its position with British, and the international opinion.

    When Telangana wants to get its separation, it has to bargain its case with Indian Central Government.

    If you think your village people are being marginalized, not-so-well represented, discriminated against because of their identity tag belonging to your village, are socially and economically handicapped because of your origin from your village, then you have a case.

    First, I need to understand your case. Then may be, if you don't sound so childish, may be, I will support your cause. Frankly, you have not made a good first impression for your case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sujai
    Recently, a not-so-well-off cousin of mine from Telangana was confessing why he speaks Andhra Telugu though he lives in Hyderabad.

    This is absolutely wrong conclusions of many Telaganites.Because of these examples people think Andhra guys are exploiting Telangana language which is not rite.

    Andhra telugu is pure telugu(whether u accept or not).Even though they were with Madras they were not effected by Tamilians.If u listen to Telugu people staying in channai they speak in a different slang.Telangana telugu is mostly urdu mixed.There is nothing wrong in Telangan telugu but purity is always with Andhra telugu(till date). May be tomorrow if they start some new words even that will be impure.
    For eg. If u go to North India the Hindi which they speak(in most part of North India) is absolutely pure hindi.But if u come to hyderabad and some parts of UP its urdu mixed.

    If he spoke Telangana or said he was Telangana, he was quite sure his sons would not get admission.

    Is this in hyderabad?I won't believe this.Which school in hyderabad is doing this?Till today no one did that(to my knowledge).May be just to support Telangana or cover something he must have told you this statement.If thats the case then no Telangana guy shud get admission in hyderabad schools and they shud remian illetrates.Thats not the case !1I have so many friends hailing from Nalgonda,Karimnagar and mehbubnagar who speak Telangna telugu and still have got jobs and are in good position.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Foot_Dalo_Raaj_KaroMay 14, 2008 7:02 PM

    The bargaining power can be achieved only through group politics - unfortunately.

    There is another name for "group politics" - in hindi it is called "Foot dalo raaj karo" - "divide and rule".

    This was the same logic used by the british to divide hindus and muslims, rich and poor, upper caste and lower caste.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @veena -- take a chill pill .. this fella never made much sense anyways.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sujai

    I learnt something from this discussion. Group politics is sometimes a pragmatic 'half-way house' solution for some problems which have been allowed to get septic for a long time. Thanks

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  20. Vinod:
    'group politics' is an essential ingredient in many democracies- especially in those countries where there are people of different kinds living together. If it is a homogenous population, we may not see this prominently, but in all those nations where people of different identities co-exist in large proportions, 'groups politics' plays a vital role, and if carried out well, is actually a healthy exercise.

    For example, in US, there are lot of groups, Blacks, Hispanics, Roman Catholics, etc, and also environmentalists, abortionists, etc, and they are called lobbies.

    Each lobby tries to get its privileges, its rights, its protections, from the state, from the authority, and sometimes with the majority/privileged.

    If you a vegetarian and you are being marginalized, persecuted, discriminated, less favored, just because you are vegetarian, then it makes sense to create a lobby or a group to represent all of you to fight for the rights, against discrimination.

    Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  21. barackobama.comMay 16, 2008 9:50 AM


    For example, in US, there are lot of groups, Blacks, Hispanics, Roman Catholics, etc, and also environmentalists, abortionists, etc, and they are called lobbies.

    Each lobby tries to get its privileges, its rights, its protections, from the state, from the authority, and sometimes with the majority/privileged.

    If you a vegetarian and you are being marginalized, persecuted, discriminated, less favored, just because you are vegetarian, then it makes sense to create a lobby or a group to represent all of you to fight for the rights, against discrimination.


    That is exactly the kind of politics we are trying to end in the US this year. GoBama - Obama will end this politics of lobbying and would create transparency in the whole system.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...trying to end in the US this year. GoBama - Obama will end this politics of lobbying

    So naive!

    ReplyDelete
  23. So naive!

    90%+ of your genes are same as my genes. There are more similarities than differences in people. Naive are those who want people to fight based on differences in color, sex, sexual preference and other genes.

    Agar ekta ka prachar karna naive hai - to haan Obama naive hai! Agar foot daalne walon ko sudharna naive hai - to haan Obama naive hai!

    Sujai: Time will tell who is naive - Obama or you. In the meantime please learn some good things from the US instead of teaching everybody how lobbying works.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sujai

    Granted the necessity of group politics, I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that group politics has its risks as well - of turning the participants into bigots or blinding them to the bigger picture of harmonious living. Both of us are well aware of this in the case of blind Indian patriotism.

    I think one has to be cautious in supporting group politics. , recognizing its necessity as well as its pitfalls.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sujai,

    When some idiots think that people of Telangana want separate T, therefore T should be given, there are also people who think that Hyderabad should be divided according to the wishes of the residents of Hyderabad. If the recent elections is an indication, I don't need to explain where they want to go. Let me know which idiot group you belong.

    ReplyDelete
  26. we all are samaikya andhrites.on an experiment BASIS let us depute 1000 nos of auto rikshaw guys to kadapa and vijayawada respectively.will the localites allow these 1000 nos of auto rikshaw guys to survive there?though these guys will struggle to work and earn bread there.WILL THE LOCAL SOCIETY THERE TOLERATE THESE POOR GUYS TO WORK ON EXPERIMENTAL BASIS?CAN A BEGGAR OF TELANGANA SURVIVE IN ABOVE MENTIONED PLACES.
    EXCUSE ME IF MY COMMENT IS MAD.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sujai,
    What prompts you to think Telengana people are supporting separate state?.

    2004 Election was bought on different issues like farmer suicides, Economic reforms of of Chandrababu naidu not benefitting rural people etc. This effect was seen in the entire Andhra including Telengana.

    Recent election was fought mainly on Telengana statehood issue and TRS lost heavily.

    Whether statehood is the wish of the people or wish of few politicians and intellectuals? Do they want separate statehood or development for their area?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Guys Guys!! Slow down.I am not supporting Telangana but let me clarify something. In 2006 when KCR won with huge majority in karimnagar I saw it as only KCR win and not Telangana.
    Now even though TRS lost I say don't irk people by saying/asking what u will say what u will say.Lets first fight for our development.Even the educated guys here are commenting like TV9 reporters and KCR.Please stop analysing and commenting.Have patience. By continously commenting on the same issue we are frustating our own people which will lead to nonsense.I request all the guys just to keep quiet.Guys don't take anything to heart.This is a sincere request from me.

    Regards
    KK

    ReplyDelete
  29. Since there is no response from sujai or any other advocates of T state on the fate of TRS after by elections, and since I found this thread to be active, I am reposting my views here from Telangana-iv THREAD. Any one willing to debate on my comments is welcome.



    alright MR.Advocate of Telangana, why r u so silent after the by election results are out? Did ur leader, KCR the GREAT tell u to be silent? backed all the facts about Hyderabad and insisted that it has to be part of telaanagana when once formed. Sorry, u have caught the people's mandate on the wrong foot. Your own KCR is silent since june 1st sunday 2008. Alright MR. strong supporter of seperate Telangana, I want to listen to what you want to say now about state's division. I have read most of your answers to the questions which other bloggers posed. Most of your answers seemed arrogant. Let me see the degree of arrogance you may use in answering this post. Majority of people in Hyderabad want development. It does not matter as long as it is congress or TDP and as long as they do not split the state. Your great leader many times implicitly stated that andhra's are spoiling Telangana and andhras are -ve, -ve^2,-ve^3 and blah blah and blah. he not only derided the politicians but also the commoners and had minimum respect for the felings of common man. Your great leader clearly understands the psycology of general public and has seen that the general public is sickly sentimental and used this "SENTIMENT" and plotted to carve out telangana based only on sentiment. yaa people definitely give in for sentiments in India. This was his only agenda. Read any news paper u will get the same info. I do not want to elaborate this. People clearly rejected the "The Great Man" and his followers in Hyderabad. In that the TRS came only a third in terms of votes it achieved. It is common knowledge that congress and TDP chose to speak in favor of telangana only fearing the peopl's anger and a baclslash which thy may have to face courtesy brainwash of people by KCR to demand a seperate state. Your "great leader" cleverly blackmailed TDP and congress. Even Chiranjeevi is facing so many difficulties in setting up his party and has been delaying it for eons. Only obvious reason--"what should be his stance on T-state?". If he embraces telangana, coastal and rayalaseema will reject him and vice versa.

    Now speak up. what do u want? development or telangana or I know you would "intellligently" put it as Telangana with development.

    I am not against the telangana sentiment or the people(I know you would curse me that I am using diplomatic language).I WANT THE DEVELOPMENT of the entire state. Its true that telangana is neglected by "andhra politicians". strive for the development of the region and not break up the state. there are many other backward regions of the state srikakulam, prakasam, ananthapur, most parts of rayalaseema etc. actually these people should ask for a seperate state. The only gut feeling you guys have in demanding a seperate state is that you do not have to work harder for the development of Hyderabad when once it is in the exclusive T-state. Conversly, Hyderabd will loose its sheen when it is seperated. Many educated telanganites hate the idea of being sperated from adhra pradesh. simple reason, their properties would get affected. Clearly the urban voters rejected TRS in twin cities. People will vote for anyone as long as are assured of all the possible good things. Your leader is very cunning and the common had enough of it and gave a strong reply to his seperatist tendencies. If he has to regain the voters confidence before the next general elections in 2009 he has to be a hercules in doing so. But still I do not agree with the idea of providing justice to one region and depriving the same justice to other regions of the state. (Context is Hyderabad).

    Sir, sir, please do not catch the voter on the wrong foot once again.

    I do not have to remind you this. But just as a matter of fact if hyderabad is handed over to telangana, andhra and especially rayalaseema would fare very badly in terms of economics. This is not social justice with equality. Your great leader's demand for a seperate telangana is good. But what is not good is the fact that he wants to develop Telangana at the cost of ordinary people's lives in coastal and Rayalaseema. I can write more on your blog and willing to debate with you for ever.

    I sincerly advise to drop the idea of T-state and concentrate on
    1)uplifting the lives of poor people and not playing cheap sentiment politics
    2)keep away from detesting commonman(your leader greatly hates andhra people more than the politicains he has very scant respect for andhra people)
    3)stop indulging in loose talk(on the other day he told that a sword is put up on rajsekhar's neck and it may set off after the results of Byelections. what a farce?. irony of fate right? especially for you self made staunch supporter of Telangana?)
    4)do not try to blackmail people and never again think of snatching away Hyderbad from Andhra pradesh.

    Bottom line: If you and your great leader really feel that telangana needs development, stop being political and diplomatic about it. your KCR says that if telangana is a reality, he will not wish for any positions in the government.(loose talk again.)people re NOT foolish.

    June 1st 2008 everyone knows who has become the laughing stock of entire telugu community and that who is going to have the last.laugh.

    politics apart, if at all if telangana along with Hyderabad is seperated, what is the gaurantee that this "backward region" is going to be "developed".? YOU MAY IGNORE my previous comments, but if you guts to answer my question, come with a simple straight forward explicit anwser. no ifs and buts.

    I gaurantee you that TRS, if it divides, andhra state, it is going to enjoy politically and also enjoy with ministries in Hyderabd at the cost of the common man. Believe me whatever agenda your ideological leader has, it is only a big humbug and people are not going to be swayed by his loose talk.

    seperate T-stance has wasted the time of everyone in this state including me who had to spend nealry half hour to write this post(my typing speed is slow.)

    I would like to see the real red face of your great leader and what he is going to talk within due course of time. If he were a sincere politican, he would have openly acknowledged defeat and admitted that he is going to drop the movement. Since he did not do this, it seems, he is an oppurtunist and a "GREAT POLOTICIAN".

    Tell your leader to cool himself and try to be not HEADSTRONG.

    I am expecting candid answers for my post. Do not post arrogant and head strong answers.
    June 03, 2008 9:07 PM
    Anonymous said...

    still no response from the strong supporter of the movement. Yes I am talking about u Mr.Sujai(the owner of this blog.). I do NOT mind if u take ur own sweet time. But do not quote arrogant replies or hackeneyed phrases. Just simple striaght anwers. Do not repeat the political answer that the moment has NOT died and its only the TRS party which has lost. Its commonsense that which party clearly favors what. I do not have to explain it to you. You may know better than most people.

    Note: I am neither a congress nor a TDP party worker. I am just a commonman who is irked by people who keep talking about division and people who brought this issue to lime light only for their selfish deeds.

    No pun intended. I hope you come up with a reply in good spirits.
    June 04, 2008 5:45 PM

    ReplyDelete
  30. foot_dalo_raaj_karoJune 08, 2008 6:51 AM

    Sujai Said: So naive! - about Obama.

    ...trying to end in the US this year. GoBama - Obama will end this politics of lobbying.

    Listen to Clinton's speech today and you would know who is naive.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Vodafone and many international companies have invested in India"

    Sujai this shows how angry and frustrated you are about andhraites in Hyderabad.
    this also shows how you view andhraites, you look at them with contempt.

    Andhra people came to hyderabad not as investors but moved there for living.
    There is a huge difference between a investor and a person who wants to live his life.
    Investors are after profits and gains andhra people did not come here as investors
    they came here to live their life.
    Just because telangana people lived here for more generations than andhraites does not give them
    right to bully andhrities who are here for few lesser generations.
    For this very reason of being bullied and killed and looted by telangana people andhraites
    does not want hyderabad to be in telangana.
    This did happen before where telangana people looted andhrite and their hard earned wealth
    and dragged them onto streets and killed ruthlessly.

    Why should not telangana people lobby or bargain with Indian government at center
    about their development may be that would have helped develop telangana by this time
    its very ridiculas that one fine day talangana people woke up and want seperate
    telangana because they are distinct , underdeveloped,illitrate.
    If this telangana group had lobbied or bargained to higher authorities instead of
    churning hatred against andhraites they would have done some progress and development
    to telangana by this time.
    Instead today we have more hatred and we have Sujai who shamelessly justifies this hatred
    with various reasons.


    "To my knowledge he surely belongs to hyderabad and have rite to ask for hyderabad.
    If these guys ask for Hyderabad whats wrong in it ?
    You are now mixing two things here. Being local does not mean he represents the group.
    Identities are different compared to the legal status.
    A Catholic person migrated from Poland to India could be Indian,
    but he does not represent Rajasthani group or a Telugu group.
    He may not represent Sikh or Jain group."

    Sujai, this is a group of generation of andhrites who are asking this question
    for seperate hyderabad, he does represent andhraites in Hyderabad.

    "Fight FOR Telangana includes Hyderabad" why telangana people want to fight for
    something that does not belong to them.


    "You see that the present day Europe has come about after a
    long turmoil of such clashes of identities.
    Bloody wars kept drawing the national boundaries for centuries."

    I am sure telangana people and their hatred of andhraites is going to create
    a bloody war on ground now, this is the main
    problem why center is not happy to create seperate telangana state while they readily agreed
    with less efforts for other states in India.
    This became like a war for seperate country not just a state because of this hatred.

    To be continued.........

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Wouldn’t the demand by Pakistan that they get New Delhi since their ancestors and forefathers were the ones who invested in that city to make it a grand city have been a ridiculous proposition?"

    The above proposition is really ridiculous if telangana is becomming a SEPERATE COUNTRY and wants hyderabad due to geographical problems and military and administration problems IF its trying to become a different country.
    Sujai, are you people fighting for a seperate state or country??
    Hyderabad can be seperate with its own unique cultural identity within the rest of state in Union of India.

    Surya

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sujai,

    I stongly object for your calling andhraites in hyderabad as immigrants. We did not immigrate to a DIFFERENT country. We just MIGRATED to a different place within OUR own country.I think there is a HUGE HUGE difference.

    "that immigration does not come with a right to accede California to Mexico"

    I think andhraites are not trying to accede hyderabad to andhra region.Here USA,MEXICO are 2 very different COUNTRIES with standing armies and airforce and are not states within some bigger xyz country ofcourse mexicans accedeing california to mexico is dangerous and USA has every right to reverse that immigration.
    I think every citizen in India has right to migrate to any place and live happily there and prosper.
    Telangana people have the same right to live in land of hyderabad as any one who migrated from north east to hyderabad because i think every citizen of India is having equal right to land anywhere in India,I think this must be made clear to ALL Indians in India not just Telangana people. If he moves to US and americans dont want him thats a different issue.
    Telangana people are talking like Raj Takre of Mumbai very plain and simple.Telangana people are deluded into thinking like tommrow they are going to create a new country called Telangana and they are going to setup a new immigration ministry and issue new green or yellow cards to andhraites who work in hyderabad,i think this VERY dangerous. I just want to remind telangana people that they are just creating a seperate state and NOT a country.
    Andhra is not a developed place either ofcourse its having fertile land, are telangana people jelous about this ? and want to dry up rivers which feed these fertile lands this is ridiculous. This is like calling for a war.
    I believe sincierly there is NO need for this war, we can solve these issues peacefully.

    Regarding your cousin story. I would like to share with you one more intresting incident. I am having very close telangana friend here in Boston he is good guy, i sinciery believe he is having every right to live happily in hyderabad, we dont care if they prosper, i fail to understand his frustration when his andhra neighbour prospers,do you know what he says about telangana? he loves to kick out andhraites from hyderabad and is going to loot his andhra neighbour houses and businessess when new state telangana is formed, for this very reason Hyderabad MUST be seperate we do not want to give power to someone who wants to destroy andhraites in Hyderabad.

    Why must there be a new IIT in telangana? It is andhraites who are floding IIT's and wanted a IIT in their home state, now when telangana is a different state its no different than IITM for andhraites.



    Surya

    ReplyDelete
  34. Smaller states Helps in administration .. but How small.
    Cultural States helps ..but in which way. is it groupism.
    Make it a Small State Or Big State ,It dosent Matter as long as the system doesnt Change.Power remains in the Powerfull and never helps the poor.This is Fact .Politicians Grab what ever they get in a Big and small State.the Poor remains the same.Why Inteligent People Like all those who are in the Blog think of a change in the system.I think all of us are sufficiently well off.Think of the Real equality .Be inovative .. Think together for a better world as long as we live here.Blogs are not only ment to fight (its cheap).Think a better way to handle Issues.India is full of Groupism ,accept the fact.A Group in Power will always do good for its Group.Every Place has Groups .You become a minority in your own place if your group is not in power.Well the feeling is bad.Muslims in a Majority Hindu Area(New city).Hindus in Majority Muslim areas(Old City).Then you have Christians,then Reddy's(Rich and Poor),Kammas(Rich and Poor),then Kapus(Rich and Poor),Then yadav(Rich and Poor),goud(Rich and Poor)..every one would play as long as the system is rot .Change first ..then break in n parts its doesnt matter.Put First things first.Please Help change the system .It dosent matter where you live .-- John

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sujai,, your writings and Ideas create impact .Why dont you also write on changing the System.
    -John

    ReplyDelete
  36. Read naive lobbyist-killer news

    See what naive Barack is doing to the lobbyists. Change has come to Washington! Hope it would reach Sujai-land soon so that Hyderabad could be rid of the lobbyists.

    WASHINGTON -- A top adviser to President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday that the transition team would raise about $7 million to cover its costs, supplementing $5 million in government funds, but would reject donations from lobbyists or corporations and rely instead on the same of small donors who helped propel the Democrat to victory.

    “These are the strictest ethics rules ever applied,” he said.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The only law is change itself.

    People change, Languages evolve and merge, states, countries change.

    There will be positive and negative impacts of this change we are proposing (the negative are the unintended consequences) of seperation. The key choice is, are the known consequences sufficient to form a new state.

    Apart from emotional arguments about thievery (same argument is used about the british - many say they did nothing for india - which is an emotional, not a 100% rational view.). I have not really seen any intelligent economic modelling of the split's benefits.
    None of the news papers seem to have provided indepth coverage of one can expect from the 3-4 new states being proposed, Why is there is no intelligent debate with proper economic modelling being commisioned by the various parties?

    Is it beacusethe low literacy coupled with zero economic education means no one is interested in this info?

    My view is 3-4 states better than 1 (due to the smaller state argument), but i don't see many changes to life on the ground. In fact iam a bit concerned that the 3 new capitals will shrink investment levels in Hyderarbad.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Having grown up in the west with a strong telugu feeling (coastal AP), it saddens me to hear of 'discrimination' against people with Telengana dialects in AP.

    Unfortunately, Discrimination is rampant even in areas with high education. A lack of anti-discrimination programs in schools are usually the cause. (actually is there one in AP for this issue?).

    I find Indians are especially discriminatory overseas against races that have been at war with them. Its sad to see them bring their garbage overseas.
    I also find it funny we Indians use 'discrimination' as the main reason for not moving up the company ladder.

    So a lot needs to be done inside the country to ensure peace and prosperity for all...perhaps India need's to invest in more than a nice nationalistic songs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. illogical conclusions on hyd not being as a seperate state... Good luck...

    ReplyDelete
  40. dude i actually agree with you on your views about telangana as a separate state, but kindly go and fck urself and the rest of ur state people, coz hyderabads development isnt any of telanganaz doing. and what the fck are people who have lived their whole lives here and have their lands here do? give them to you and wait for u to screw up, which i guess you also know, will happen very soon

    ReplyDelete
  41. sorry about the abusive language, please do delete the above comment

    ReplyDelete
  42. About TRSs loss in the previous elections (@ comments in previous posts) -
    It was because of failure of KCR. Ppl started to feel that he started the "T" movement for his selfish motives.People lost hope on the leader BUT "The common man" in Telangana ALWAYS wanted the separate state. Refer to the news channels and the newspapers for the few days. The people who are agitating for the "T" were students, lawyers, govt. employees, and 30+ mass organizations.

    Hyderabad belongs to Telangana and only Telangana. How absurd would it sound if ppl. in "T" say Vizag, Vijayawada, Rajahmundry, etc, should belong to Telangana ? The same applies when the Andhra lobby claims Hyderabad.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hyderabad has primarily a muslim identity and is very different from Telengana.

    There are muslims, Andhraites, North Indians, Tamilians, lots of military and central govt employees. Ripe for union terrritoty status.

    In case you want a precedent for it, think Chandigarh.

    Using ethinicity/culture argument(as used in formation of seperate Telengana), Hyderabadis have a right to carve out a city state for themselves.

    You can't have the cake and eat it too, dear!

    We don't mind being the common capital for all the three telugu biddas.

    ReplyDelete
  44. guys have u considered the fact that your identities would be lost and new ones have to be formed? we are all right now belonging to 'AP' in almost all our proofs of citizenships...all that will be nullified with the formation of a seperate state..think of the chaos resulting from this..at a point of time, we may practically be aliens to our own country

    ReplyDelete
  45. To all those who consider hyderabad to be seperate from telangana just because it is cosmopolitan why wasn't Mumbai and bangalore carved out into UT eventhough they are several times more cosmopolitan than hyderabad. Just forsake of the real estate business interests of few andhra politicians and business men you cannot do that. And those andhra guys who are worried about their employment, remember statehood is a criteria for gvt jobs not the private corporates. So you are all welcome to compete on par with others for the IT jobs which all belong to private entities. Moreover new govt jobs would be created in andhra too. Atleast now no one would cry that you have taken their jobs..

    ReplyDelete
  46. Lets have a change and change is for better.

    When some one wants to separate it is their right to go on that... its happened been held for almost 40-50 years now......

    if u guys want samayykya andhra ... then go have it with coastha and rayalaseema : which it was before.... leave telangana from this ... don't loot us any more with all your cheap tricks.... u build dams for ur benefit ... well paid and influencial positions are given to andhra people..... and ur just left out.... As a Indian and also as Telanganite we need our freedom..... we want to separate so we want to go the way we want.... u did the same when u want to separate from madras state... so we also want our right.....

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Sujai,

    I found again that some context has been missing from the logic of this blog.

    1. The reasons for separation of "India-Pakistan" and "Telangana-Andhra Pradesh" are different. Pakistan was divided based on religion and hence they did not ask for Delhi. Telangana is being formed on "backwardness" basis. So , what we are asking is:
    Telangana+Hyderabad as separate state and backwardness as the criteria. This is a contradiction since when combined with Hyderabad, Telangana is more developed (on a, lot of development indices) compared to the rest of AP.

    2. One more context insensitive argument is asking for a so-called Bangalore separate state in the blog. This is also not comparable to Andhra guys asking for a separate Hyderabad state because, in the latter case the people who are asking the state are not "immigrants". They are proper residents of the state of AP (again the context here is that we are still in one Andhra Pradesh and as of now, Hyderabad is our capital and belongs to all of us). It is common for people to move from villges to city for the sake off employment and people who moved into their own state capital can't be called immigrants.

    3. And again, u may say that since this city is situated in Telangana, we have to give it to Telangana only. It may be true in a general scenario but in the case of a state capital, it is a lil bit different. People from all regions have to interact with their state capital and thus it is bound to have people from all the places in it. And all the people together developed it thinking that we will live together for future also and that we will all have the fruits of its development. It is the same case with any state capital. People from all over the state live in the state capital and u can't really ask for a dominant portion of the local regional people in the state even in the capital. That's why we dint have any problem when dividing the other states (Chattisgarh etc) since no state capitals were involved. When the state capital is involved, we can't be partial to any section of the state since it has belonged to all the people of the state till now.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Moreover, people in Hyderabad do not wnat to belong to Telangana.. we have to respect their opinions too :D

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chaitanya,
    First do not ever extrapolate your opinion with everyone else's in hyderabad. Second try to convince your self that hyderabad and telangana have been always a single entity. Even now hyderabadi people including those whose ancestors were born in hyderabad, feel they belong to telangana. Those who feel shame about calling a backward region as part of their state are the one who think hyderabad is not telangana. They would not even consider telangana as region belonging to AP, if given a voice. Luckily such introverts are very few. Do you know when hyderabad was distinctly carved out as separate district? Even now all the administrative offices of rangareddy district are located with in the city of hyderabad. If you think declaring hyderabad as UT and have it separated from rest of telangana would safeguard andhra settlers, then you are mistaken. Most parts of hyderabad as we know know and where majority of real estate investments are made, still belong to Ranga reddy district, nalgonda and medak.
    May be the place you played when you were kid does not even belong to hyderabad city then?(assuming you grew up in hyd)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Chaitanya,
    I think you are not following the logic put forward by sujai. He is just saying that if what the andhra people are asking regarding Hyd and claiming it is legible then it would have been legible for pakistan to claim Delhi when they separated. This in actual case did not happen and Pakistan did not claim Delhi because this was deemed as illegible and illogical. Remember before the partition, Delhi was the national capital of even those regions which later separated as Pakistan.
    Several muslims in delhi remained with india and several other left for pakistan after partition but never claimed delhi just because they invested money or bought home in Delhi. Actually they were not even pressurized by the govt of India to leave. That actually is different story why they left india in first place, which is still considered by most indians as a nightmare. Even Pervez Musharaff was born in Delhi who later became the ruler of Pakistan.
    So it is your blind faith that if some one invest money in a place he can conveniently bind this place to his ancestral regions even if they are geographically distinct. Even British had to leave Hongkong after developing business there for 100 years because Chnina did not agree to continue the lease. There is similarity here between telangana-Andhra agreement and Hongkong-China Lease. The gentleman's agreement sayst hat telangana can separate out any time if its people think that the unification is not benifitting teh region.
    Never wass hyderabad excluded as separate from telangana in this agreement.
    That is what sujai wants to convey and so please try to understand the whole point in it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. sravan.. u said "There is similarity here between telangana-Andhra agreement and Hongkong-China Lease."

    So, do u mean to say that a Britisher in Hong-Kong and an Andhra guy in Hyderabad are equivalent wrt to their rights abt the state?

    ReplyDelete
  52. To chaitanya I said similarity that does not mean same as it is. A similarity between agreement and lease is what I was stressing upon. Not between britishers and andhra people. That was a lease and this was a agreement. Do you think britishers invested in hongkong because they thought chinese living in hongkong are not competent? I do not want to go deeper into that because it would be an entirely different issue.
    Whatever, they never claimed hongkong when the lease term ended. Atleast they know what is legal and ethical at the end of the term. Even though lease and agreement are different, it is important that whatever the terms agreed upon during their approval, that should be followed as it is. This never happened with Andhra-Telengana gentleman's agreement. Atleast the terms they agreed upon how to end the agreement should be followed as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chaitanya said...

    1. The reasons for separation of "India-Pakistan" and "Telangana-Andhra Pradesh" are different. Pakistan was divided based on religion and hence they did not ask for Delhi. Telangana is being formed on "backwardness" basis.

    I don’t profess that the current creation of Telangana is based on ‘backwardness’ alone. While it is one of the considerations, it is not the only consideration and definitely not a prominent consideration. The problem of Telangana has been that of marginalization of one minority region that has a different historical and cultural makeup by a majority region. The problem of Telangana has been marriage of unequals where a region that was repressed under Nizam Rule, where feudalism was rampant, bonded labor a common ailment, where people were illiterate or studied in Urdu, was combined with another region that was quite educated, had better democratic institutions under British, feudalism rooted out, land reforms well established.

    To compound the problem, almost all agreements and government orders were blatantly snubbed using the power of majority.

    Telangana constitutes a different entity altogether in every respect and deserves a second chance to make it on its own. The 50-year marriage has failed.

    This is a contradiction since when combined with Hyderabad, Telangana is more developed (on a, lot of development indices) compared to the rest of AP.

    While Hyderabad was recently developed, many cities have been developed in Andhra. Rajamundry, Vizag, Vijayawada, Nellore, Kakinada are far developed compared to any of Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Adilabad or any Telangana cities. Also the regions of Telangana are quite backward.

    Developing only one city just because it is has become home to Andhra people while neglecting the entire region actually sounds insidiously selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shame on you for creating a blog like this.Its a really pain you guys talk like this.
    Did you ever wrote a blog when an Indian suffered due to racial attacks?.Now you talk on about regions.Shame on you

    ReplyDelete
  55. To Anonymous,
    i think Sujai has been writing on sevral other issues for many years now. They include racism and many kinds of discrimination.
    So it is your discontent on knowing that your longheld opinion is based on falsifid facts, that si making you emotional.
    Once you are out of it go through the blog again,
    Good luck

    ReplyDelete

Dear Commenters:
Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.