Thursday, August 01, 2013

Creation of States in India

Download PDF


With the announcement for creation of Telangana, similar demands for separate states have erupted from various other regions in India. One is from Gorkhas, currently in West Bengal, who have been asking for a separate state for nearly hundred years now. The other is Vidarbha from Maharashtra which was proposed by NDA government but was kept in cold storage. Mayawati proposed breaking Uttar Pradesh into four new states. 

Lot of people in India, 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? Did Telangana open a Pandora’s Box?
 
Doubts about India

Prior to 1947, many pundits of the world history doubted if India would remain united as a nation.  Winston Churchill believed that India will descend into anarchy.

Looking at India of 1947, one might have easily concluded that it was impossible to keep India together.  It had so many religions, so many cultures, so many languages, and so many kingdoms. It looked similar to multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual Europe or may be Africa. How could such a continent live as a country?

Fast forward sixty years, and it looks like we have proved those pundits wrong. India is going strong in economy, human development, science and technology, industry, agriculture and military. India remains a vibrant, strong and united nation.

But is that really true? India saw its first breakup right at in 1947 when it created Pakistan (and later Bangladesh). Partition of India led to massacre of half a million people.  That separation haunted Indian subcontinent for a long time.

‘Division is bad’

Thereafter, India looked at every division with suspicion. There was certain degree of iron hand used to keep the country from getting divided. We always had uneasy feelings about creating new states as if every such division would lead to another 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 ended. National fervors across the world subsided. External threats decreased. War with Pakistan doesn’t look as imminent as it did before. India became confident of itself.  Our perception of India 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.  Creation of states has been a continuous process.  India created 21 states starting in 1953 till 2000.  It has not led to disintegration of the country. 

We started to admit to ourselves that India is not homogenous, that people have group and regional identities which were as important as national identity itself.  It became clear that we are a united nation only if our local identities are recognized.

Though Nehru was reluctant to create new states along linguistic identities, it is now seen in retrospect as pragmatic and wise move. Creation of states along linguistic lines resulted in containing lot of contention within India, making the people feel empowered. But limiting ourselves to recognizing only language as group identity to form states, thereby ignoring all other group identities, is quite unfortunate. India is now compelled into recognizing that there are more group identities other than languages, as Telangana has established.
 
Group identities

Independent India 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 their proper representation.

While some group identities are spread uniformly like men and women, upper and lower castes, other group identities have distinct geographies, like Telangana, Gorkhas, etc. Some of them may feel that their aspirations are better addressed only in a separate state.
 
First 30 years: Big is good

For a long time, it looked like bigger states had better advantages in India. 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 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 and identity parties

In absence of a proper representation for states at the Center, various states put up regional/identity parties to make their 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 and Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. These parties contested against national parties on the plank that they are able to get more benefits to their regions.

During the late 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 what we call 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.
 
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 and more than 70,000 were put in jail. With this action, Indira Gandhi allowed for complacency in many states. The message was evident- 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.

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 back to the bully and ask for favors and 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.
 
When will these divisions stop?

With the creation of Telangana 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 who opposed formation of Telangana no matter what happened inside Andhra Pradesh, 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 was given that the center will never create a new state.

That was also the reason why most political parties of Andhra Pradesh agreed to support separate Telangana in 2004 and 2009 elections, 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 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. With creation of Telangana, there will definitely be a clamor for more states.
 
Future for evolution of States

India is going to see creation of many more states in the near future. There could be at least another 20 states created in the next 10 years. So, we could ask, ‘when will stop this division, why won’t this go completely out of control creating a domino effect? Why won’t there be 1000 states? Why won't this lead to break up of this country into many nations?’

Most Indians fail to understand why India continues to be a united nation.  It stays united not because its people are forced 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.

According to some pundits, India could easily add few more states, like Harit Pradesh, Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand, Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, etc. 

This does not mean we will continue to break up states into smaller states forever ad infinitum.  Big states will not go out of fashion no matter what. 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 more states will set in motion many changes in how the incumbent states will behave.

The incumbent states will start fearing 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. 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 30 years. That’s when these divisions will stop. And who knows, we may see reunifications and mergers after that.
 
More states can be good

We call Telangana a ‘small’ state.  Telangana once formed will be home to 35 million people.  If it was a country, it would rank 36 amongst 224 countries in the world, more populous than Canada, Australia or Malaysia. 

USA with 300 million people has 50 states while India with 1,200 million people has only 28 states.  Why should India stop at 28?  Why can’t we have 50 or 80 states?

For a very long time, Indians did not believe that small states could do well.  There were prevailing examples of Northeast states which were really small and showed no progress in economy, standard of living, education or industry. 

At the same time, big states did not necessarily mean better development.  Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar were big states of North that performed poorly in all indicators.  With creation of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chattisgarh, it was recognized that small states could do much better than big states. By 2009, 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 Uttarakhnd is 44 compared to 67 in Uttar Pradesh. Literacy Rate in Jharkhand is 61 compared to 55 in Bihar.

The states like Haryana- carved out of Punjab, and Gujarat- carved out of Bombay State, are examples of states doing good economic progress.

India started to see the 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.
 
Managing States in India

There are two initial conditions for the current set of problems we are facing where many regions are clamoring for new states.

Problem 1: The center was averse, reluctant and sometimes downright opposed to formation of new states in India equating it to balkanization of the country.
Problem 2: India being a weak-federal strong-central country, the incumbent states like to remain big so that their bigger strength in the Parliament gives them better negotiating terms.

These two problems form the premise for most of the problems that we are facing with various neglected regions in India.   There are two ground realities that emanate from the diversity of this country.

Reality 1: Though there are many states in India, we do not recognize various kinds of identities in India.  While some identities (like languages) got statehoods, others did not.   Many states have one majority identity clubbed with few or many minority identities. 
Reality 2: All individuals and all identities work with self-interest.  If unchecked, a majority and privileged group could inadvertently dominate and marginalize the minority and underprivileged group within a state, even when no preset agenda or a plan exists.

Over a prolonged period of time, the above two problems combined with above two ground realities could result in the following situation.
 
Situation

Imagine a state where region A forms the majority and the privileged while region B forms the minority and the underprivileged.  Reality 1 and Reality 2 suggests that there should be safeguards, protections, guarantees and reservations to protect people of region B.  In most states those safeguards and protections do not exist because of shortsightedness and reluctance of India to recognize those identities as valid constituents. 

And where those safeguards and protections exist, like in Andhra Pradesh for Telangana, the region A could still flout them with impunity using the clout of majority; and there is nothing the region B could do other than complain, protest, agitate, and in the worst case scenario ask for separate statehood. 

When the region B clamors for separate statehood, the incumbent state will be unwilling to let go of this region no matter what, because of Problem 2 – they don’t want to become smaller.  All efforts by region B to get attention from the Center will be snubbed, because of Problem 1 – center doesn’t want to create more states.  

So how do we get out of such situations? Here I propose some of the possible methods.
 
1. Run states as mini-nations

India should allow states to run like mini-nations.  That means recognition of an identity should not stop at state level, but should extend it within the state as well.  The way a nation protects the states from each other’s domination, a state should protect the regions from each other’s dominations.  That means the current setup of treating a state as a homogenous entity where only the number of people’s representatives has a role to play is fraught with problems.  

The way a nation has states, a state in turn should have regions.  If state is a mini-nation, then each of those regions is a mini-state.  Each of those regions should have their administrative safeguards, protections, and reservations.  For example, extending Mulki Rule kind of protection (as done in Andhra Pradesh with an intention to protect Telangana) should be the norm not the exception.  Having a head, like mini-Chief Minister for those regions could also be considered.

We should realize that it may come natural for a majority region to suppress a minority region in each state – it comes as a natural outcome of common man and his leaders acting selfishly in their narrow schemes.  We should not see it as an exception but as a norm and design our states keeping that in mind.  It’s time we realize that we have far too many identities and that all of them cannot be accommodated with a state for each of them. 

If Andhra Pradesh was run like a mini-nation, Telangana would NOT have been so easily discriminated and marginalized.  A smaller region would have almost equal power as the larger region and thereby nullify the discriminatory resolutions.   We should learn lessons from Telangana and make sure other states do not go through similar problems.  
 
2. Make India a federation

The inherent assumption that center is always the best decision maker is flawed.  Many decisions that the center has taken have not gone well with many regions and they have suffered for that.  It is also high time we started moving towards full fledged federation.  Right now, we are a very weak-federal country- called quasi-federal. 

We became a strong-central country because our forefathers who framed the Constitution, and the first few Prime Ministers, had to contend with the possible problem of breaking up of the country.  They believed that a Center was more benevolent compared to the states when it came to the mandate of keeping the country united.  This concentration of absolute power at the Center also led to certain excesses where Chief Ministers were fired again and again by New Delhi.  The only way to combat the excesses of the Center was to position regional parties at the states.  That’s exactly what happened in the last thirty years where regional parties came to power diluting the national parties’ power, forcing New Delhi to work with coalitions to recognize the needs and demands of states.  Coalition politics came as a substitute for federal system in India.

After 60 years of freedom, we don’t have to feel insecure anymore.  We should accommodate more states.  We can also look at more options to make our country more federal in nature.
 
Senate for India

USA has two houses – Congress and Senate. US Congress elects candidates from each constituency reflecting the population of each state.  Bigger states have more Congressmen.  The Senate, on the other hand, has two members from each state.  The Congress represents the people while the Senate represents the states.  Even a small state is equal to the biggest state in the Senate thereby bringing in the federal nature of that country.

We could scrap Rajya Sabha completely and replace it with a Senate like structure.  Currently Rajya Sabha has absolutely no real use.   The Senate like structure at the Center should have equal number of representatives from each state.  They should be elected directly by the people and not appointed.

Such a strong federation will allow for small states like Mizoram and Nagaland to get the deserved attention.  With a strong federation, there is no more a compelling reason to be big.  Incumbent states that have neglected some regions, marginalized and discriminated some regions, or failed to create equitable society in wealth and opportunity amongst various regions, will no longer be able to continue the injustices, because the regions could break away and form new states.
 
3. Democratization of political parties

Though the Indian political parties participate in democracy and expect people to vote their leaders in an open election, they do not necessarily practice democracy within their party.  

A candidate for MP or MLA is chosen by the high command; they are not elected by the party workers of that constituency.  Therefore, an MP or MLA is always subservient to the high command thereby nullifying the very concept of democracy. 

Lack of right spirit of democracy in political parties has resulted in MPs and MLAs making a beeline to touch the feet of the high command, grovel on the floor, lick their feet, making Indian democracy a farce.  The CM of a state is removed or appointed and the whims and fancy of the ruling party in New Delhi.   Many regions feel that their leaders do not truly represent their aspirations and therefore the demands for separate states become more prominent and vociferous. 

Promoting intraparty democracy will usher real democracy making elected leaders more accountable to the people of the region without having to bow down to the majority region. 

Selection of candidates, election of party leaders and registration of party members should be democratized and overseen by Election Commission or any equivalent body.  This will bring in true democracy making candidates more accountable and responsible towards the people rather than their party high command in the hands of one single leader or the family. 
 
Conclusion

Governing states like mini-nations and regions like mini-states, creating a strong federation, introduction of Senate-like structure, and democratization of political parties will make India mature in handling current issues coming from regionalism and make India a strong and vibrant democracy.   We will see fewer demands for new states because smaller regions will now be protected from dominance of bigger regions if run as mini-states.  We will see a decrease in the number of regional parties because now with strong federation, regional aspirations are met even by national parties. 

27 comments:

  1. Great analysis! Funny movement in (residual) Andhra Pradesh, owing mostly due to the delay, immature handling of the problem by the center. Neither Manmohan Singh, nor Sonia Gandhi making any damn statement allaying their fears, seems pretty strange. Telangana is a right decision taken by congress unfortunately with wrong motives.

    Telangana has to work hard, really hard, not to emulate its parent state Andhra Pradesh. Ironically, the fears of seemandhra settlers are unfound and ironical. They have to work hard to protect their identity here and make sure to stay united and I am sure Telangana government will not be able to marginalize them. They would be a good vote bank for any political party in Telangana.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, those you call settlers are actually post-Y2K migrants. The settlers of Chikkadpalli, Vanastalipuram & the countless rural Gunturpallis are fully integrated with the local ethic.

      The Y2K Andhras (KPHB Andhras) are a different breed. They refuse to speak Urdu, eat in Andhra messes, see only Telugu movies and never step beyond Lakdikapul. At every possible opportunity, they go "home". The richer guys from this lot (e.g. IT folks) have been following too much Andhra politico propaganda. They in turn influence both their folks "back home". This is the reason for the scare mongering to set in.

      Delete
    2. Jai, Absolutely right said. I like this new term 'Y2K andhrites' besides the 'Mulkhi rule rapists'. Here is my problem with their opinion 'We developed Hyderabad' - this is kind of like quoting 'the H1B IT workers helped develop America'. Hyderabad is the jaagir of Telanganites whose infrastructure was built on the tax collected on the Hindus, Muslims by the Nizams. The politico-rich migrants have only invested in the open lands in their own favor. This is natural when you have a developed city, and you chip in the investments multiply. E.g. suburbs in the US. The migrants invest for better living. Ironically, the Telugu migrants can't claim the credit. Telangana was a state formed before Andhra that was merged, and now is going through a meaningful divorce aka bifurcation. The Andhrites will always have a bad taste in their mouth like ex-girlfriends. These relationship-gone-sour ex-girlfriends are monkey dancing now unbearing the fact - like in the case of the fox and the grapes.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I am one of those post Y2K migrants to Hyderabad (which is very much part of India and the capital city of my home state). I don't think it is a crime.

      I do not refuse to speak Urdu. Actually, I am poor in speaking Urdu/Hindi since I am brought up at a place in Coastal Andhra where Urdu/Hindi is not spoken and Hindi is not well taught in Schools. I don't think it is a crime.

      Yes, I eat only in Andhra messes since I like the Andhra cuisine. I don't think it is a crime.

      Yes, I see only Telugu movies since it is my preference. I don't think it is a crime.

      Yes, I do not step beyond Lakdikapul since I do not need to. I don't think it is a crime.

      Yes, I am a relatively richer guy since I work in an MNC IT firm. I do follow the views of Coastal Andhra's politicians through the media since I want to be updated on the political situation and views of the people's representatives. I am mature enough to filter facts from propaganda. I don't think it is a crime.

      I share my views with my folks back home and I don't hold negative views about Telangana. I don't think it is a crime.

      In the past, there were cases of isolated hate crimes against common people from Coastal Andhra. One my ex-colleague was one of the unfortunate guys who were beaten up by agitators on Ameerpet Road after he answered in the affirmative when they questioned him whether he is from Coastal Andhra. Though such cases were very few, one needs to be cautious in the wake of the developments. I do not spread scare. But, I am cautious. I don't think it is a crime.

      - Srinivasa Rao

      Delete
    4. How can some set of people own a city in a democracy? Ridiculous.

      What makes more sense is this: A city is "collectively" owned by the area it's (geographically) set in.

      What makes the most sense: A city owns its residents.

      Delete
    5. Anon1: Yes, I remember the movie Darr (tu haa kar, na kar, tu hai meri Kiran) when I see these claims.

      Delete
  2. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/talking-terms/entry/telangana-in-perspective

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Samajwadi-Party-reiterates-opposition-to-smaller-states-says-Congress-playing-politics/articleshow/21542448.cms

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2013/forget-what-critics-say-forming-telangana-is-right-decision-1271895.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am usually a silent reader. But i have a few things to say here. Not all people around Kukatpally are non locals. Kukatpally village has a lot of locals . I agree that there is a lot of floating population in and around Kphb. Chikkadapally and Himayatnagar were closer to the city( nampally and secunderabad) and the real estate prices were unaffordable to most people. This was particularly true during 80 and 90's. So a lot of people purchased plots either around dilsuknagar or kphb and other areas. These places were on the edge of the city. In case of kphb the huge government housing which was at one time the largest colony in asia(not sure now) meant a lot people with low and middle income became residents. Also the factories in and around patancheru (including BHEL) meant a lot of employees working in these areas became residents due to the proximity. The number of good junior colleges and coaching centers in ameerpet was also a factor. Inability to speak urdu is by no means a crime. By the same token a lot of old city folks cannot speak in telugu either. Also a lot of these folks probably did not have hindi as on of the languages during their schooling. I am saying hindi because i had it as first language. Not sure if you have had urdu as a language during your schooling. Visiting their home town every few weeks or every week is not against law. There are a lot of consultants in most countries who work in different states and travel back on the weekend to their hometowns. The people in kphb may be unwilling or unable to experience the local culture. But i guess that is their loss. As long as they don't mock or disrespect the local culture it should not be an issue unless you want to impose only telangana culture just like MNS in mumbai. Agree that there should not be a huge issue with the division of state in terms of security. My guess is a lot of business in most areas pay protection money to the local politicians/goons to do business. There are quite a lot of business owned by andhra people in and around kphb. They may have fears about increased hostility in the new state. These fears may be unfounded in the long run.

    regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, I am not against these folks. I agree with you that visiting "home town" is perfectly unobjectionable. Regarding Urdu, I contend you can't change the lingua franca of a city by silly reasons (like Marathi for Mumbai).

      My contention is that they opted to isolate themselves. This resulted in their current inability to influence the city's future. The consultants you mention similarly have low impact on the aspirations of the place they live. As you say "this is their loss"

      Delete
    2. Jai,
      Urdu is a language or mothertongue of few in HYD city. Do you expect a person who comes from rural telangana like Khammam or Warangal to speak in HYD accented urdu? Telangana region itself has lot of diversity from Adilabad to Alampur and everyone dont know hyderabadi urdu nor they speak in same way

      Delete
    3. Isolation? Is someone isolated in your city because one chooses not to abide by the lingua-franca, likes to frequent to one's native place etc.?

      Influence? You believe T was granted because of the influence of urdu speaking local T population?

      Common man has no time to influence a city. He is busy earning his bread. Go figure.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Urdu/Hindi (Hindi) is the mother tongue of a minority in Hyderabad (Mumbai) but most people in the city understand. Most Telangana (Maharashtra) people have a reasonable knowledge of Urdu/Hindi. They don't find it difficult to merge quickly.

      Even if some newcomers find it difficult, it does not mean a city should change its language. People from Varanasi/Allahabad, for example, find it difficult to understand terms like "change", "banda" etc. that are common in Delhi. Be a Roman in Rome.

      I am amazed at the brazen stand that "Hyderabad belongs to all Telugus". It does not, never did in the past and never do so in the future. The city belongs *only* to those who live here. Once Telangana is formed, Andhras will have as much right to Hyderabad as Delhi-ites, no more & no less.

      Delete
    5. You seem to represent the great intellectual wealth of Telangana, India. But my friend, you are just noticing how the Andhra goons are being kicked out, well, by Telangana goons. While T goons use innocent people (1000 innocent lives lost), A goons use their money bags to fight. All this intellectual overtone to T movement is going to fade away! T goons or A goons, Indian goons they are, they suck, worse, in a caste-infested way!! I am sure the happiness I have for the new state will not live long. The reddys, the velamas are waiting eagerly to share the spoils and they are _always_ going to play underdogs in the hands of the A goons (reddy, kamma, kapu) lords - one state, two or three. And your intellectual, egalitarian discourses will float on.

      Delete
  6. Whew, what a week! Little, did we know that the current government would endorse the struggle for Telangana, a little earlier than 2014. This may seem ironic as a dhakaa to Seemandhrites to their dismay supplemented with utter disbelief that 'Hyderabad received an uplift from them'. This theory in dark translates to an immigrant claiming - the H1B immigrants developed America. America would go on a laughter riot if we ever said this. Hyderabad once a.k.a as the 'City of Pearls' was actually built on the tax levy collected from our forefathers to the once richest Asaf Jahs (The Nizams).

    The famous quote - "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutralityĆ¢€ is now well reserved for the once high-tech CBN by the souls of the cotton suicide farmers, and the martyrs of Telangana. May your political ambitions in Telangana RIH (Rest in Hell) after 2014. Also by the way, the wrath of Telangana is that they incoherently raped the mulkhi rule. If not Dubai wouldn't have been the badkismat dirham-dreams of a Telanganite, while Hyderabad became the employment paradise for the Seemandhra emigrants.

    The holy book Gita says, there are two kinds of forces - fate and human effort. If it was not for the humans then Telangana struggle after 58 years in 2014 would be freshly next to Mandela's non-violent struggle adapted from Mahatma Gandhi's principles. This may outrage our already fiery Seemandhra friends now. I plead the Seemandhrites to stop those no-sense dog-eared cheesy cartoons ripped of the internet, or it may seem like another sour case of the 'fox and the grapes'. Its time they console themselves or they may be held as quoted by Aamir Khan in one of his famous movie - Jo Jeeta Woh Sikandar, Jo haara Woh Bandar.

    Meanwhile, for those who have been worried about property values in and around Hyderabad the fact of the matter is Economic Times of India has just printed - Creation of a new state holds many opportunities for Telangana and Seemandhra. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/creation-of-a-new-state-holds-many-opportunities-for-telangana-and-seemandhra/articleshow/21541934.cms
    Please note, some of the interesting facts in the section part of the article - Little Economic Impact, and who the majority of the investors have actually been.

    Good things come to those to wait. So, until the bill gets passed - Jai Telangana.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Then we want Hyderabad to be separate state. We don't want to join with Telangana. Now your opinion will be reversed right? How silly you are.. poor guy Sujai.. Build-up your mind set first.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even these are wrong? Write some shit replying to these Mr Sujai:
    http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/telangana-decision-microcosm-indias-geopolitical-challenge?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=official&utm_campaign=link

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/08/01/a-microcosm-of-indias-geopolitical-challenge/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not sure why the whole topic around andhra people in telangana or T folks in A. We have hoards and herds folk from both T and A in US. How would it sound if some US senator calls for sending all desis back ? Im sure no one would even blog on that topic ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sujai, Excellent article. If I may suggest on your part with comparison to the US's system i.e. Senate (upper house), and House of Reps (lower house/Congress) the system ain't much different in the way it operates with our Rajya Sabha (Upper House) and Lok Sabha (Lower House). The major difference is the state and terriorial legislators elect Rajya (state) members while the Senate (state) members in the US are elected by people. In both cases in the US - they are elected by the people. It makes a lot of difference. Otherwise, both house in both countries have to pass the bill. Other major difference being Lok Sabha as a lower house has the dominant authority of approve/disapprove a bill with the Indian system. In the US the Senate (upper house) has more authority to pass/disapprove it once introduced in the senate. Agreements/compromises are also made b/w the Senate and the Congress. I guess thats missing with the Indian system.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmm dividing india by sitting in USA hahahaha....These kind of blogs should be avoided like plague to save integrity and love between indians

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jai,
    I support creation of some more states in India including TG. till now in India states have been created on Language and those regions far from capital cities and not developed. A scenario where a region which is developed (ex: TG as of 2009) and which has well developed capital city has not been separated based on self respect and rule. please dont say HYD is already developed in 1956, there is no comparision between HYD of 1956 to 2009. People in SA region are not keen on HYD in 1972 and they would not have objected if TG is formed in 1972, the issue of HYD contention is coming in 2009 after development. However harping on HYD too much by SA'ts is not proper as HYD can't provide employment to all of above 20 citizens of AP. development should be decentralized

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anil,

      You must understand how Andhra Pradesh is formed. There are some agreements and laws which protects Telangana and they are agreed by SA before the state formed. Telangana people asking for their own state not only for development and self rule but also because above agreements and laws are not honered by SA. in 1972 SA are not keen on HYD because of the above mentioned laws which protects Telangna people, so there is not much for SA to exploit in Telangana area. They agreed to abondon there 'Jai Andhra' movement only after some of those laws are trashed. Otherwise I am sure they would have continued their agitation. After 1972, SA should have atleast respected the remaining and new laws which protects Telangnaa people.

      They dono repect the laws and agreements, so the only way Telangana people can protects there jobs, funds, development by forming there own state. SA people are loosing HYD because of there past mistakes, and still they are not ready to accept there mistakes.

      Delete
  13. This author's ignorance about Andhra-Telangana tangle seems to be enormous, or else he is deliberately suppressing certain crucial facts. Indira Gandhi's determination to keep AP united does not stem from separate Telangana movement alone; later in 1972-73 the Jai Andhra movement raged with as much, or even more, intensity as the separate Telangana agitation in Telangana. Exasperated at being treated as second class citizens in their own capital and by the antiquated Mulki Rules which queerly the Supreme Court in a conservative judgment confirmed setting aside the progressive judgment of the High Court, the Andhra people revolted and demanded separation from Telangana at once. At that time they did not ask for Hyderabad even. They were just fed up by the regional chauvinism in Telangana which led to all this mess. But queerly by then all the separatists in Telangana or almost all of them had laid down their arms and joined Congress and Telangana leaders were vociferous and euphoric about Telugu unity and united State. So much so that they agreed for the scrapping of the Mulki Rules for the preservation of which the very Telangana rights protection movement in 1968 started [which later escalated and transformed into separate Telangana movement in 1969] and also the abolition of the Regional Committee for Telangana and agreed to the six-point formula finalized by Indira Gandhi and hence Article 371-D was introduced as a special provision for AP by constitutional amendment and later Presidential Orders under that Article were issued for zonal system, etc. All this worked well for 30 years, there was a lot of intermixing and harmony and cordial relations until the regional chauvinists once again put poison in the hearts of Telangana people, mainly from 2002 onwards (when KCR formed TRS). Even today at least 1 crore of people from out of 3 1/2 crores of Telangana do not want separation at all and another 1 crore are neutrals. In reality people from 4-5 districts of Telangana alone are strongly in favour of separation and if an equitable, just solution is worked out for the equitable development of all regions of the State I am sure most of Telangana people will again veer round towards unity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You write:
      Indira Gandhi's determination to keep AP united does not stem from separate Telangana movement alone; later in 1972-73 the Jai Andhra movement raged with as much,...

      I have covered this in another article on this blog. It appeared as an article in Indian Express.

      http://sujaiblog.blogspot.in/2013/10/should-presidents-rule-be-imposed-to.html

      "And contrary to what Seemandhras believe, Indira Gandhi was not an apostle of preservation of existing states. In fact, history attests that she was a big supporter of creation of new states. No other Prime Minister of this country has carved as many states as Indira Gandhi. She single-handedly led to the creation of many new states--Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura. Back then, there was a strong case for creation of Telangana when the Telangana Praja Samiti (TPS) won 10 Lok Sabha seats in 1971 elections in spite of the popularity wave that Indira Gandhi was riding on at that time.

      Leaders of those times confide that Indira Gandhi was almost ready to divide Andhra Pradesh as well in 1972, which actually resonates with her proclivity towards creating new states with utmost ease. Why she opposed the division of Andhra Pradesh, as a special case, seems to have completely different reasons. The then principal secretary of Indira Gandhi PN Haskar made her aware of a pending petition with the United Nations filed by last Nizam Osman Ali Khan against forceful annexation of Hyderabad State by the Indian armed forces.

      Haskar advised Indira Gandhi not to broach the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh while the case was still pending."

      Delete
    2. You write:

      "Even today at least 1 crore of people from out of 3 1/2 crores of Telangana do not want separation at all and another 1 crore are neutrals. In reality people from 4-5 districts of Telangana alone are strongly in favour of separation and if an equitable, just solution is worked out for the equitable development of all regions of the State I am sure most of Telangana people will again veer round towards unity. "

      We believe that almost every in Seemandhra support the formation of Telangana except those tiny few people who come out on streets to protest. Almost all of Seemandhra people voted into power three major political parties - Congress, TDP and PRP, and all these parties promised Telangana and some of them have included this in their manifestos while some of them clearly announced their desire by forming alliances with TRS, while Chiranjeevi clearly stated he supports creation of Telangana.

      Delete

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.