Monday, January 25, 2010

When will these state divisions stop?

Once P Chidambaram set the ball rolling for separation of Telangana state on 9th December 2009, there were similar demands coming from various other regions in India. One was from Gorkhas, currently in West Bengal, who have been asking for a separate state for a long time now. The other is Vidarbha from Maharashtra which was proposed even by NDA government but was kept in cold storage. Mayawati proposed trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh into Bundelkhand, Hitesh Pradesh, and Purvanchal.
 
Lot of people, especially those who are not exactly entangled in Telangana and Andhra issues, are asking one question – when will these divisions end? Will it result in breakup of India? It looks like Telangana has opened a Pandora’s Box.
 
Doubts about India




Many British politicians including Winston Churchill prognosticated that India will instantly break up into hundred pieces because they will fight each other and go separate way. Many other observers of those times felt the same. Just look at India of 1947. It had so many religions, so many cultures, so many languages, and so many kingdoms. It looked similar to multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual Europe. How could such a continent live as a country?
 
And yet it looks like we have disproved many pundits. India is going strong in economy, human development, science and technology, industry, agriculture, military, etc. India remains a vibrant, strong and united nation even after sixty years.
 
Is that really true? India saw its first breakup right during its Independence when it created Pakistan (and later Bangladesh). Partition of India was a major disaster. Nearly half a million to one million people were murdered on the streets, roads and gutters of Punjab and Bengal. The separation haunted Indian subcontinent for a long time. 
‘Division is bad’

Thereafter, India has seen every division with suspicion. There was certain degree of iron hand used to keep the country from getting divided. Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and other prime ministers of India always had uneasy feelings about creating new states as if every such division would lead to Partition. Breaking up meant proving the pundits right. Breaking up meant telling your enemies we are getting weak. A strong nation doesn’t divide its states, we told ourselves. Those were the heady times of nationalism and patriotism. Asking for a state meant anti-Indian. 
Meanwhile, the Cold War has ended. National fervors across the world have subsided. Threats have decreased. War with Pakistan doesn’t look as imminent as it did before. India became confident of itself. Our perception of India has started to change. We were getting mature.
No Unity without Diversity

Unity is important, but not at the cost of sacrificing our diversity. Division is not as bad as we thought it would be. It became clear that India is not homogenous, that people had group and regional identities which were as important as national identity itself. We are a united nation only if our local identities are recognized – that’s how the new generations of Indians look at themselves. 
Though Nehru was reluctant to do it, creating states along language identity was a pragmatic and wise move. It resulted in containing lot of contention within India. But limiting ourselves to recognize only language as group identity to form states thereby ignoring other group identities is unfortunate. India is compelled into recognizing there are more group identities than just languages. Also, pure administrative reasons could be a reason to create more states. 
 
Group identities 

India immediately accepted caste identities and made provisions for uplifting of lower castes through reservations. India accepted sex identity half-heartedly – it allowed for laws to protect women but has not done enough to ensure proper representation. India is still reluctant to recognize religion as a legitimate identity though political parties seem to play with those identities.
 
While some group identities are spread uniformly like men and women, upper and lower caste, other group identities have distinct geographies, like Telangana, Konkanis Gorkhas, etc. Some of them deserve statehood. 
First 30 years: Big is good

For a long time, it looked like bigger states had better advantages in India. Such a notion actually made sense for a while. India being a flawed federal system did not give equal importance to each state. Since Lok Sabha only recognizes number of MPs; and since big states supply more number of MPs, it was clear that big states have more clout and bargaining power from the Center. Indeed, the first thirty years of India saw the monopoly of big states.
However, that monopoly from big states was confined to politics, not necessarily development. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Bihar, some of the big states of North all failed miserably in all economic indicators though they had more political power. Meanwhile, the smaller and nimble Southern States and Western States emerged as successful states.
 
Next 30 years: Emergence of regional parties

In absence of a proper representation for states at the Center, various states put up regional/identity parties to make a case. Punjab and Tamil Nadu have a long history of voting for regional parties in their states. Other states joined the fray. TDP came up in Andhra Pradesh, Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and so on. These parties contested against national parties on the plank that they are able to get more benefits to their regions. 
 
During 1980s, national parties could not muster majority to form government on their own, and India went through a period of political turmoil to settle on coalition politics. The national parties started taking support of these regional/identity parties to form the government at the center. That’s how states started to negotiate for better representation. Today, coalition politics has become the norm. Emergence of regional parties has led to partial federalization of India. For those who ask why India has so many parties, this is the answer- because India is not a strong federal country. The answer cannot get simpler than that. 
In coalition politics, the states that position regional parties to support the government at Center bargain for better representation. That’s how some small-to-medium states have been able to break the clout of bigger states and have been able to make great progress in economy and human development. For example, DMK always takes up IT minister and other important portfolios at the Center though it contributes 18 MPs. Whereas, Congress Party of Andhra Pradesh, did not have a single major portfolio in the cabinet even though it contributes 33 MPs.
Small can be good

With creation of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chattisgarh, it became clear that small states could do much better than big states. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31% growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and Chattisgarh 7.35%, some of them more than national average. Per Capita of Chattisgarh is 29,000 while it is 18,000 in Madhya Pradesh. Infant Mortality in Uttarakhand is 44 compared to 67 in Uttar Pradesh. Literacy Rate in Jharkhand is 61 compared to 55 in Bihar. 
It is clear that there are advantages in being small. No longer do people have to put their faith in big states for development and improvement. Smaller states are able to give better administration, allow for electing leaders with more accountability without giving any excuses, and give empowerment through better representation of regional identities. 
Incumbent states didn’t pay for their crimes

One of the sad outcomes of suppressing every movement that sought new states was that incumbent states became complacent. They could continue to neglect certain regions with impunity and did not have to pay for the consequences.
Nehru tried to build democratic institutions, while Indira Gandhi went about destroying them or emasculating them. Indira Gandhi suppressed many people movements with ruthless force. In 1969 Telangana agitation, more than 370 protestors were killed, more than 50,000 were put in jail. Thousands were injured. With this action, Indira Gandhi set the tone for the next thirty years. No more states. Period. That led to complacency in many states. They could go on marginalizing and discriminating certain regions within the state without having to pay for their crimes. No court, no law, no institution could protect these suppressed regions from the onslaught of the majority and privileged within a state because the Center had no jurisdiction on how the state would allocate its funds, use up resources, build hospitals and schools.
 
A state having two regions A and B could consistently marginalize and dominate region B using the majority of A, and there is nothing the region B could do. The region A could flout all agreements, revoke all rulings, and break all promises, deprive region B of its waters, its jobs and its funds, and still there is no price to pay. There were no dire consequences for such heinous crimes.
 
That complacency led to many regions getting completely neglected in India, the foremost being Telangana because Andhra Pradesh was divided starkly along geographic lines with many difference between the two people. The majority and privileged Andhras consistently flouted all rules, all laws, and all safeguards to continuously oppress Telanganas. And Telanganas couldn’t anything about it. All doors were shut. Indira Gandhi has set a precedent that no matter what happens to you, you should still go to bully and ask for favors, still go back to the same bully and ask for forgiveness.
 
That’s where Indian democracy went really wrong. A weak-federal strong-central structure led to creating a nation that could not uphold the cherished promises it made in its Constitution to some of its people. These people got neglected, suppressed and oppressed while all the democratic institutions failed to address their grievances. 
When will these divisions stop?
With Telangana agitation in the background, I would like to discuss the division of states in India and why I think these divisions would eventually stop, reaching an acceptable equilibrium.

Because of the prevailing tone set by Indira Gandhi et al who were opposed to formation of new states no matter what happened inside a state, incumbent states got the message that no new divisions will be tolerated. After the successes of 1970s when Andhras could even reverse a Supreme Court decision that tried to safeguard interests of Telanganas, the majority and privileged of Andhra escalated the marginalization and discrimination of Telangana with impunity because now it is understood the center will never create a new state.

That was also the reason why most political parties agreed to support separate Telangana in 2009 election, falsely believing that Center will never grant statehood to Telangana. When they made their promises they never thought they had to live up to them. Hence abrupt consternation ensued when P Chidambaram, who had innocently believed their letters written in support for Telangana, came out on 9th December 2009 to announce the steps towards formation of separate Telangana. 
The biggest transformation that has happened in the recent past, second to the passing of RTI act, is the acceptance by all national parties a need to create new states. P Chidambaram’s announcement came as a surprise to everyone - this was a major shift from the prevailing tone. If Telangana is formed now, there will definitely be a clamor for more states.
 
Future

India is going to see creation of many more states in the near future. According to me there could be at least another 20 states created in the next 15 years. Some people ask me, when will stop this division, why won’t this go completely out of control creating a domino effect? Why won’t there be 100 states or 1000 states? Why won't this lead to break up of this country into many nations?

Most people do not understand why India continues to be a united nation. It stays united not because its people are coerced into staying together, but because Indians have faith in this country. We are all willing citizens of this country, not the oppressed subjects. The fact that we are still together in spite of so many problems is a testament to our belief in this country. India will not break up so easily just because we create few more states. In fact, creating more states will result in reaffirmation of our faith in this country that it cares for us by actually addressing our problems. 
Big states will not go out of fashion either. There are certain advantages in living a big state and those advantages will continue to motivate people to stay together. Creation of the next set of 20 or odd states will set in motion many changes in how the incumbent states will behave. The way Indira Gandhi’s ruthless suppression set the tone for the last forty years, the current division of states will set the tone for the coming forty years
Creation of these new states in India at this point of time augurs well for regions that have been neglected so far. After creation of these new states in India, the incumbent states will fear that some of their neglected regions may seek separation any time. Such fear is good because the incumbent states will now concentrate on improving those neglected regions. With that kind of fear, hopefully there will be no more Telanganas. 
Neglected regions will get incentives and sops, including better representations and opportunities, safeguarding their interests, reducing the need for these regions to form separate states. Major breakups and separations would decrease with time because most states by then would have learnt their lessons NOT to marginalize or discriminate their regions.
We would have reached a level of maturity then - may be in another 40 years. That’s when these divisions will stop. And who knows, we may see reunifications and mergers after that.


38 comments:

  1. Say NO to BALKANIZATION of India and hence no to formation of Telangana.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hope president's rule is imposed in AP ASAP, so people can resume to work as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kamal:

    Say NO to BALKANIZATION of India and hence no to formation of Telangana.

    Did creation of Andhra State out of Madras State, Gujarat out of Bombat State, HP and Haryana out of Punjab, Chattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttarkhand out of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand out of Bihar lead to BALKANIZATION OF India?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Krishna R:

    Hope Telangana is formed ASAP, so people can resume to work as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Say NO to BALKANIZATION of India

    "Did creation of Andhra State out of Madras State, Gujarat out of Bombat State, HP and Haryana out of Punjab, Chattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttarkhand out of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand out of Bihar lead to BALKANIZATION OF India"

    Telangana people are hostile and non-cooperative.

    So its NO to BALKANIZATION.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With the disclaimer that I am not well versed in this whole issue, my question is - where do we stop? 10 years down the road a separate group within a newly carved state might feel oppressed and need a new state. Do we keep on bifurcating? Or should the fight be for proper recognition and rights of the people.

    On a separate note, a very nice and interesting blog - chanced upon it by accident.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous,
    Telangana people are hostile and non-cooperative.
    Well said... I agree ...

    Sujai, please know what the word 'balkanization' means...it just does not mean splitting states, but also the animosity that comes with it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kamal:

    Telangana people are hostile and non-cooperative.

    Even I agree with that.

    Telangana people have a history of harming and hurting people of other regions. They have kicked out Gujaratis, then Marathis, then Kannadigas. They also have targeted Andhras consistently. Last year alone the current DGP of Hyderabad and the current Governor of Andhra Pradesh recorded a total of 13,087 incidents of Telangana people targeting non-Telangana people.

    This can be clearly seen in the statistics of immigration. Telangana people have migrated to Andhra region in millions while almost none of Andhra people have migrated to Telangana.

    Because of hostile and non-cooperative nature of Telangana people, Andhras could not establish business or take up jobs in Telangana. Also, Telangana people continuously belittled Andhras language and culture.

    While Rayalaseema had only kicked out few Andhras who had taken up illegal jobs in their regions, Telangana went overboard. They didn't even wait for any GO to be implemented. They took matters into their hands and completely trashed all Andhras out of Telangana.

    I do agree that Telangana people are hostile and uncooperative. While it is so easy for Telangana person to set up business in Andhra, no Andhra can even think of setting up a business in Telangana.

    That's also the reason why you see less than thousand population of Andhras in entire city of Hyderbad.

    I do wish that Telanganas became more cooperative and less hostile.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sujai,
    Very well answered.
    However there has been growing animosity between a telangana stranger and an andhra stranger. But when it comes to relations(family,friend or school) i do not think there is anybody who has simply 'balkanized'(I see our friend's here had already redefined the word balkanization, we telugu are relly creative!!).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good riposte Sujai, very ironical indeed that things have turned other way round. Balkanization does not mean existing animosties, it also means future animosities and squabbles that come with creating more states.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why should center solve Telangana tussle? What have Telangana folks contributed to the nation building or security? Nothing. So emphatic NO to Telangana formation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Krishna R:

    Statehood is not a gift in return to some "achievements" or "contributions".

    Telangana people have been responsible citizens of this nation for 60 yrs and it is about time they get their rights too.

    Being treated EQUALLY and on-par with the rest of the country is Telangana's constitutionally declared right... which has been curbed through manipulation of data, dis-regard to laws and mojority politics.

    What did Jharkhand and Chattisgarh do for India that they were declared new states?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kamal,
    Future animosities is too far fetching an idea now. Like you hope that separate state can be prevented so as we hope future animosities can be prevented(Ball is in whose court?.
    Well even if we keep the regions united, how do you think the animosities can be avoided? Don't you think it could be other way around?
    Every one likes and strives for peace, love and prosperity. None can exist with out the other.
    Balkanization is globally a very different idea. It is in no way near a demand for separate state. Your using it here is only a ploy create fears or worries about national integrity.
    Whatever,
    , who said balkanization of Europe has weakened any nation in there? They are better off now than before.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My opinion is every region has right to ask for self rule, if it is economically feasible.

    My straight question to this blogger is " Why telangana movement leaders changed stance from Under development to Self rule & Self respect". The only reason identified is they know the statistics they are showing are not the whole picture, They gained support by creating & painting one enemy from hallow (Which is not existed). The way hitler showed to all germans -an enemy (Jews) to gain support to his party by blaming them (Jews)for all ill effects of society. I am not againest to any movement towards small states (Because both small and big states had its own merits and demerits), but my objection is the way the movement is going

    ReplyDelete
  15. From Wiki on Hyderabad State

    Administratively, Hyderabad State was made up of sixteen districts, grouped into four divisions. Aurangabad division included Aurangabad, Beed, Nanded, and Parbhani districts; Gulbarga (Gulbarga) division included Bidar District, Gulbarga, Osmanabad District, and Raichur District; Gulshanabad District or Medak division included Atraf-i-Baldah, Mahbubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda (Nalgundah), and Nizamabad districts, and Warangal division included Adilabad, Karimnagar, and Warangal districts

    In truth Hyderabad was never developed by taxes only from Telangana region. The claim by KCR that Hyderabad was developed by Nizam by contribution from taxes got from only Telangana region is utterly false. Hyderabad does not belong to Telangana hooligans who want to take it away in the name of new state. No body in India will agree to the daylight robbery. If you guys wants Telangana take it with out Hyd. Develop one more city yourself. Blood sucking Telanganites.

    ReplyDelete
  16. laughing_OutloudJanuary 31, 2010 7:10 AM

    @ Kamal

    We can understand your frustration. We can feel the heat of emotion coming from your devastated real-estate investments and your supremacist attitude towards Telangana people. It is very evident from the way you just branded a 4 crore population as "Telangana hooligans and bloodsuckers".

    But, you see Kamal, Hyderabad is a city in India. It belongs to all Indians. Which state does Hyderabad belong to... will be decided based on Geography and culture, its people and the laws.

    It really doesn't matter to 4 crore Telanganas the status bestowed to this city. It is theirs and they know it will ALWAYS belong to them.

    If you people push for a colonization of the city, you will see your stupidity staring at you in less than 5 yrs.

    The growth potential of a city is first requirement of a city. If you cut off a piece and it cannot grow beyond the piece... you will see your real-estate topple anyways.

    Good luck with your stupid demands. My hair doesn't go to coconut farm owners just because I used the coconut oil for its growth. Only and ONLY an andhra fellow can make such fake claims on others belongings.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It really doesn't matter to 4 crore Telanganas the status bestowed to this city. It is theirs and they know it will ALWAYS belong to them.

    People living outside Hyderabad have no less claim to the city than anyone living in Telangana. People wanting Telangana along with Hyd are pure blackmailers. Screw you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  18. People living outside Hyderabad have no less claim to the city than anyone living in Telangana.

    Hyderabad with Telangana: Hey.. look... My heart is right here inside my body!

    Hyderabad as a Union Territory: Two cats fought for a piece a bread... a monkey (Union govt.) came to do justice and ate the whole bread up!

    Hyderabad as a shared capital: A huge loss to the seema and andhra people... they will lose a few lakhs of jobs that the capital city brings to their region. It is an awesome arrangement for the Telanganas.

    Hyderabad as capital of Andhras, warangal as capital of Telangana: A PERFECT situation. except... its like USA having its capital city in mexico. They will be at mercy of Telangana.

    NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME IS... HYDERABAD CITY WILL BECOME MORE AFFORDABLE TO THE COMMON MAN. PRICES IN REAL ESTATE WILL COME DOWN TO THE EARTH... TO THE 2002 LEVELS.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kamal,
    I can understand how bad you might be feeling about "loosing hyderbad"
    What a joke? Do you really think you "loose hyderabad" if separate state forms?
    Now coming to your argument
    In truth Hyderabad was never developed by taxes only from Telangana region. The claim by KCR that Hyderabad was developed by Nizam by contribution from taxes got from only Telangana region is utterly false. Hyderabad does not belong to Telangana hooligans who want to take it away in the name of new state. No body in India will agree to the daylight robbery. If you guys wants Telangana take it with out Hyd. Develop one more city yourself. Blood sucking Telanga

    NO body claims a city based on your claim that who invests or who pays?
    It is only based on one criteria that is geopgraphy and to be precise its historical geography.
    The region now we call telangana has been and always contained with in itself the city named hyderbad atleast since the birth of hyderabad.
    So it is naturally a part of telangana and belongs to the telangana state once telangana region gets the status of a state.
    And loosing your city it is quite ridiculous because hyderabad is indian city and you are and indian. How could you loose it???? You would not need visa or special permissions to live in hyderabad or enter it. You won't be needing any special permissions to build you house or buy and sell your property.
    So how is it going to affect you on a personal level?
    Can you explain that?
    And blood sucking is a big word my friend. If telangana people are blood sucking why did you come to the city of blood suckers?
    Why do you claim their city now?
    And why do you want to love with blood suckers in one state?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kishan,
    " Why telangana movement leaders changed stance from Under development to Self rule & Self respect".
    why would one ask for a self rule and self respect?
    Because they feel that the people of this region do not hold enough power to exercise what is good for them? And they do not want to depend on the people of other region to do the administration for them. If we continue to do so and do not question then it means that the telangana people do not have self-respect.
    So that is clear now that telangana people never accepted the andhra people to rule over them because they are determined that they have been marginalized altogether in andhra dominated administration.
    Your question it self gives the reason why telangana people's demand is just.
    If the agreement we made before joining the AP is not respected all these days why should we stay joined? If we continue to do so, then we are loosing our self respect. Isn't that true? Can you say that the agreement you made was respected?

    ReplyDelete
  21. How could you loose it?

    You are talking too naively. Today Hyd has so many state owned institutions, private colleges etc, access to them will be lost once it goes to T state(undeservedly). Also why should the taxes collected from Hyd go only to Telangana people? Please stop this day light robbery.


    And blood sucking is a big word my friend. If telangana people are blood sucking why did you come to the city of blood suckers?

    No body thought blackmailing, treachery and imposition of your culture was there hiding in your blood. We thought you guys were civilized lot.

    Why do you claim their city now?

    Hyd can never be claimed by Telangana. Stop your lolli.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And why do you want to love with blood suckers in one state?

    Ya we never want to live with you after knowing that you guys take in guests only to steal their belongings. Edhena mana samskruthi - Athidi Devo Bhava annaru. Only if the capital city Hyd was not in Telangana we would not have any objections for the separation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hyderabad as a Union Territory: Two cats fought for a piece a bread... a monkey (Union govt.) came to do justice and ate the whole bread up!
    Prefer the monkey to eat the bread up

    ReplyDelete
  24. KAmal,
    You are talking too naively. Today Hyd has so many state owned institutions, private colleges etc, access to them will be lost once it goes to T state(undeservedly). Also why should the taxes collected from Hyd go only to Telangana people? Please stop this day light robbery.
    State owned institutions have a rule that they can intake only 15% from Andhra and telangana.
    Private institutions they are privare no body stops you to pay and join.
    And teaxes,
    why should the taxes paid in telangana should be spent in andhra? All these days more of it was spent in A & R and very little in T. Actually it is you who robbed telangana of its share. but i refrain from saying A and R are blood suckers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No body thought blackmailing, treachery and imposition of your culture was there hiding in your blood. We thought you guys were civilized lot.
    I thought saying blod suckers wasn't civilized and thereby I refrained from using it. So who is civilized and who isn't?
    And who imposed culture on whom?
    And who always berates the culture of whom?
    Everyone knows who did that?
    And now in the wake of loosing the power you are just reversing your own guilt?
    And "in blood" is a big word again?
    I refrain from using that too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hyd can never be claimed by Telangana. Stop your lolli.
    It is you who are claiming hyderabad from telangana.
    It rightfully belongs to the region it is in. If Andhra Pradesh remains it belongs to Andhra Pradesh. if AP separates it belongs to telangana.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ya we never want to live with you after knowing that you guys take in guests only to steal their belongings. Edhena mana samskruthi - Athidi Devo Bhava annaru. Only if the capital city Hyd was not in Telangana we would not have any objections for the separation.
    Yes my samskruthi says respect the guests. But my samskruthi also says one should be modest and patient. Telangana people were good hosts for 60 years.
    But our samskruthi that says not to loose your self respect recognizes that the guests are no more guests but just businessmen with lowly intentions of looting our resources for cheap telangana people decided to throw out their looters.
    If you are a guest you are welcome .But remember as a guest you are supposed to respect the law of the land. If you do not you no more our welcomed guest.
    I think it is time you say thank you and go. We spare you as you are a guest.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Prefer the monkey to eat the bread up
    Why would you bother when it is not your property? Well we love hyderabad because it ours and we would not prefer to let the monkey eat the bread.
    Do you remember the story of a cow and its two alleged owners who come to maryaada ramanna? So how does he solve who is the actual owner?
    He makes a tentative judgement to cut the cow in to two equal pieces. The actual owner pleads him not to. But the thief says go ahead.
    Just like you.
    We wouldn't let hyderabad go to someone else. We love our city because telangana is the rightful qwner of hyderabad.

    ReplyDelete
  29. He makes a tentative judgement to cut the cow in to two equal pieces.
    Your analogy is skewed. Making Hyd UT will make it grow even more and not destroy as in the cow case. No more blackmailing. No more T leaders putting nose in cities affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your analogy is skewed. Making Hyd UT will make it grow even more and not destroy as in the cow case.
    You are just speculating. And speculations are mere ideas and not the facts.
    I can speculate that , may be if separate state forms hyderabad will regain its position in India as 5th largest. And more, may be it will regain its lost glory and will surpass Bangalore and Chennai in its total personal income.

    No more blackmailing. No more T leaders putting nose in cities affairs

    This is like speculating with tint of idiotic fascist, supremacist ideology

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is like speculating with tint of idiotic fascist, supremacist ideology
    Any argument against T state is thrown out as supremacist and fascist. Grow up !!! We don't want our dear city Hyd to fall into hands of T commies and socialists.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kamal:

    Hyderabad does not belong to Telangana hooligans who want to take it away in the name of new state.

    You are absolutely right. Telangana does not belong to hooligans. It belongs to Telangana people who are usually peace-loving and ordinary people – the very same people who have embraced people from all regions, make it multicultural region, the very same people who have embraced Andhra people into their cities, towns and villages without harming them in any way.

    Nobody in India will agree to the daylight robbery.

    The more you write the more I seem to agree with you. I agree with you once again. We should not allow daylight robbery, in fact, we should not allow nightlight robbery. Therefore, we, the people of Telangana, wish to put an end to it. That’s why we are separating – so that this daylight robbery of Telangana does not continue.

    If you guys wants Telangana take it without Hyd.

    You are not actually getting this. We don’t want Hyderabad. We just want Telangana. But it so happens that Hyderabad is built on Telangana. We don’t seem to shake the buildings away. Please do one thing. Please take all the buildings and homes that you seem to built on the lands of Telangana. We will retain Telangana while you take the buildings. If you can’t transport those buildings to Andhra with your advanced technology we will easily pay up for the buildings at the market price.

    Develop one more city yourself. Blood sucking Telanganites.

    We will develop many more cities the way you develop Vizag, Vijayawada, Rajamundry, Nellore, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  33. We will develop many more cities the way you develop Vizag, Vijayawada, Rajamundry, Nellore, etc.
    You can develop now too. Nobody is stopping you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Please take all the buildings and homes that you seem to built on the lands of Telangana.
    You are talking as if Telangana belongs to you alone. Such people like you should be sent back to reserved areas deep inside Telangana jungles, just as reservation areas exist for native Indians in US. You people cannot coexist with others peacefully and hence only interiors of Telangana are deemed fit for you guys. I know this sounds very very supremacist in talk, but you have given me no other option to utter these insane words.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kamal. I agree with u.

    This is daylight robbery. All this underdevelopment selfrespect is a BIG farce.

    This is daylight robbery nothing more nothing less only with Telangana ishtyle.

    Its a big opputrunity loss for Andhra people.

    Andhra people also must get ready for loot of their properties and oppurtunities and business in Hyderabad once Telangana is formed.
    If we dont make a big doom about it in hyderabad we will be under Nizam sarkar.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If we dont make a big doom about it in hyderabad we will be under Nizam sarkar.

    LOL
    you guys already were under his esteemed Nizam Sarkar's rule.
    After 1956 you andhra elitists invited the esteemed Nizam to represent your old capital city Kurnool in Parliament. He lived as Parliamentarian representing Andhra constituencies for two terms until his death in 1967.
    You guys are hypocrites. No doubt

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sujay,

    Your posts are well formulated & logically presented. A welcome change from many others!

    I am intrigued by one factor in the current debates i.e. the support of seeandhra SC/ST to seperate Telangana.

    What is the reason? Dr. Ambedkar's theories or something deeper?

    BTW I am not baiting you, just want your views

    Prakash

    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.