The Telangana decision can’t be left to the UPA’s electoral gambles


PRESUMING THE UPA government gives in to the demand for a separate Telangana state, three issues will merit pondering. First, the creation of India’s 29th state would follow a Congress assessment that it could persuade the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) into an alliance in the 2014 General Election. Second, the impact of an individual — or rather of his sudden death and absence — would have had astonishing and far-reaching consequences.

The current round of the decades-long Telangana movement began in November 2009 when K Chandrasekhar Rao, chief of the TRS, went on a fast. Just months earlier, the TRS had been drubbed in elections in Andhra Pradesh. Rao was elbowed out of reckoning by the Congress chief minister, YS Rajasekhara Reddy. When Reddy died in an air crash, the Congress lost its strongman and Rao smelt a chance. He went on a fast hoping to assuage his supporters, win back lost ground and embarrass the Congress. Instead, the tumult on the streets, and the new chief minister’s inability to tackle it, led the Union government to panic. A concurrence with the idea of Telangana was hurriedly announced.

In the three years since, the Congress has spent its time explaining away that panic attack and attempting to delay a decision. It appointed the Justice Srikrishna Committee to study the Telangana option. The committee’s report kept one chapter secret because it referred to possible national security challenges arising from a separate Telangana. A covert chapter was the last thing astute politicians would have recommended. It only served to make the atmosphere seem that much more suspicious.

Third, ideally a policy decision — any policy decision — should set a precedent and suggest normative benchmarks for the future. This has not and is not happening in the case of Telangana. There is no clarity as to parameters being considered for statehood. The first State Reorganisation Commission in the 1950s used the criterion of language, sometimes bunching together linguistically similar segments of different states. In the Northeast, especially following the breaking up of Assam in the 1970s, and in the case of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in 2000, the logic of ethnicity was used.

For better or worse, both these parameters — language and ethnicity — set a precedent. More recently, assessments of state creation and dismantling of gigantic provinces have focussed on administrative ease — as in the case of the proposal to create four daughter states from Uttar Pradesh. There has also been limited talk of economic viability.

OLD POSTULATES have sometimes been proved right and sometimes quite wrong. There is no uniform rule that small states do well. For every Haryana that is successful, there is a Goa that faces enormous challenges. Jharkhand was cut out of Bihar under the assumption that it was exploited and oppressed by Patna, but being mineral-rich was a likely front-ranker. In the past 13 years, Bihar has moved towards stable, responsible government and Jharkhand has rapidly become India’s basket case.

Taken together, this is a robust and varied experience to draw from. The astonishing thing is none of this has influenced or been used to guide political and public discourse about what to do with Telangana, one way or the other. What are the parameters for statehood in 21st century India? If Telangana is accepted, what are the operative reasons to deny, for instance, Vidarbha liberation from Maharashtra or Harit Pradesh an autonomous existence in what is today western Uttar Pradesh or even Bundelkhand a statehood comprising some of the poorest districts of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh? Would those seeking these new entities be turned away only because there is no power vacuum in the state capital in question and because no inept government has allowed a fast and a restive throng to overtake rational decision-making?

Should the UPA leadership announce the formation of Telanagana — or even if it doesn’t — what India surely deserves is a discussion and a broad agreement on the criteria for creation of new states: administrative or fiscal, related to infrastructure or population size, flowing from objective estimates of economic neglect and backwardness or otherwise. The UPA government may think it only owes Telangana a state. Actually, it owes India some answers.


  1. It will be good if we have some criteria defined for creation of new states. But, I feel, we cannot come up with any definite criteria that fits all scenarios, article 3 was written the way it is because that is the best way to deal with it, giving freedom and responsibility to the center to handle the situations. Any attempt to ‘define’ criteria will only cause more confusion. It should be left to the judgement of the central and concerned state governments, a decision should be based on pragmatism, it could be language, ethnicity, backwardness, historic reasons, administrative convenience and last but not least, people’s wish and people’s judgement based on all factors that they deem fit to consider! After all a democratic form of govt is for the people. If creation of new states is not advisable, it is the responsibility of the existing state to make sure all its people are treated equally and there is no room for any major dissatisfaction, basically good governance, something people have a right to expect in a democracy. If people feel that a particular region is being treated unfairly, being ruled by other region, had a historic context of being a state on its own, was formed against the recommendations of previous committees, got some promises that are broken etc., they will certainly wish for a change and want a state where they can take care if themselves. This is true especially if there is a critical and coherent mass that is big enough to be larger than several countries in the world and several states in India. I feel, the talk of coming of with some criteria for state formation is not right at this stage, it will be seen as a tactic used to delay Telangana decision. There could be further debate on this topic after the formation of Telangana, may be some committee can be formed to look into it! Telangana satisfies ALL current criteria for being a state on its own.

    • All intellectuals of A.P.must realize and spread the message of truth among people. Junglee Leaders always want jungle law so as to rule over another Region.

  2. Firmly supporting Dileep’s comments that “I would urge dear Ashok Malik to have a crash course in Indian history before writing such dumb articles.”

    Historical background of the Telangana movement

    In Telangana, feudalism received hammer blows at the hands of the Socialist and Communist struggles of the 1940s. It received a fillip at the hands of biased Andhra rulers in the 1950s and 1960s who pushed the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act under the carpet (in the absence of militant peasant movement, the tenancy legislation in Andhra area had only a negative impact on tenants as the landowners resorted to large-scale evictions). The Hyderabad Tenancy Act, one of the most progressive acts in the history of modern India and also across the world, was passed by the state govt. of Hyderabad (Telangana) and partly implemented between 1952 to 1956, which resulted in the conferment of protection to nearly 6 lakh tenants with over 75 lakh acres in their possession. The same period can be described as the happiest period for the people of Telangana for a long time.

    The Telangana region could have continued its happy existence, but the merger of Telangana region with the Andhra state has taken place on the basis of linguistic states, by ignoring the wishes of Telangana people, against a categorical recommendation of the 1st State Re-organization Commission (SRC) and contrary to the views of the tallest leader of the time, Jawaharlal Nehru. However, the merger was facilitated by number of solemn promises and constitutional safeguards given to the Telangana region and these promises were made umpteen times and were also broken umpteen times by the central govt. Gentle men treaty, Telangana regional committee, Mulki Rules, 610 GO etc. this list has no end to enlist the broken promises.

    Above two points (among many more) are provided to convey the emotional outburst behind the continuous Telangana movement of 56 years i.e. right since the formation of Andhra Pradesh (AP).

    • Intellectuals of Andhra realize and spread the message of truth among people. Leaders spearheading UnitedAndhra have criminal motives. All they want is to make Hyderabad their Den so as to escape responsibility of fulfilling the promises they made to their people. And to exploit illiterate/gullible Telangana people and grab land.

      • You are right Intellectuals of Andhra should realise and spread the truth among the people so that they can oppose even more strongly.
        The rest of your accusations are really applicable to telangana politicians.

  3. The author seems to have just woken up or just been assigned to do some writeup on telangana. why can’t journalists report outside alliances to particular party, come what may certain publications are hell bent on twisting the facts.

  4. Was there such a furore when the new states Uttarakand, Jharkand and Chattisgarh were formed?The CPM resisted for mation of Gorkhaland, and Mamata does the same now.It is alright to cut up UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Uttarakhand is with the Congress and Chattisgarh with the BJP.Jharkand is perennially unstable.Now that Telengana is the bone of contention there are enough smart people advicing caution, go slow ,referendum etc etc.Is it because if Telengana is formed it will no longer be a Congress ruled state? And with YSR Congress taking over another chunk of Andhra , the Grand Old Party will be history in Andhra, hence the angst expressed by Congress Bhaktas.

    • Mr Mahadevan, you don’t seem to understand the basic difference between Uttarakhand, Jharkhand etc and the demand for Telangana. In the former case, it is the people of those regions who wanted to break away from the mainland. In the case of Telangana, it is the other way round. People who have the capital of the state geographically located in their region are asking the others to form a new state. Remember, it is not Telangana which will be formed if AP were to be bifurcated; it is Andhra and Rayalaseema. Don’t indulge in pep talk without knowing the basic ground realities.

      • What ground realities you are talking? Meghalaya was separated from greater Assam in 1970. Meghalaya got Shillong the old capital of Assam. Assam had to build Dispur for itself as capital. Nagpur was the capital city of Madhya Pradesh. When the part of Marathi speaking area from MP was acceded to Maharashtra, Nagpur was transferred to Maharashtra.MP made Bhopal its capital city. Hyderabad was the capital of erstwhile Hyderabad State, not the capital of Andhra. Andhra has come and joined Hyderabad state primarily for the capital city of Hyderabad. Both geographically and historically Hyderabad belongs to Telangana like Shillong and Nagpur.
        You Andhra guys have the impudence of claiming Madras city when you yourself got separated from Madras state. Now you are claiming Hyderabad city in to which you have gate crashed because you could not have a capital worth the name and enough revenue to run your state. Is this double standard your ground reality? It is like the proverbial snake claiming the ant hill. This self-centered arrogant colonial mindset is the main reason for the imbroglio. There is no chance whatsoever for living together now . The gap is too wide to bridge. Instead of harping on these stupid groundless arguments it would be better to think about the amicable demerger for the good of both the regions.

        • Meghalaya got Shillong because Assam didn’t object for it. Shillong population was 20K when Meghalaya was formed and there are many cities in Assam that were bigger than Shillong and hence Assam didn’t object (probably) for Shillong.
          Andhra asked for separation, hence it didn’t get Madras. So does Gujarat and many more regions didn’t get existing capitals because they asked for separation. Now Telangana is asking for separation so the centre has to follow what it did in the past in creating states.
          Not only seema-andhra but most of India ruled by British. So it looks like problem with whole India because of their colonial mentality. Separation of a region with existing capital will need whole state approval so if you want separation then work for reducing for the gap. The longer you say the gap is too wide (with false accusations) the longer it takes to form telangana.

          • I think you got wrong in terms of speaking about Shillong. Shilong is located in the Khasi Hills predominantly dominated by the Khasis, one of the three prominent tribes of Meghalaya and the other two being Garos and Jaintias, not the so called Assamese of Assam,hence Assam can in no way could claimed Shillong.

    • there is nowhere in our constitution it is written that region with a Capital city can not ask for a separate state. Uttarakand, Jharkand and Chattisgarh have built their own capital cities. art 3 written to safeguard the interests of minor region in a state. its a right of telangana. How can T get justice with 175 ot 119 MLAs and 90% of the Secretariat employees are from Seemandhra. After all it was a merger of T witn Andhra against the recommendation of SRC1955. Nehru said” vihsalandhra(united Andhra)concept bears taint of imperialist expansionism”. FazalAliCommn Para 378:”One of the principal causes of opposition to Vishalandhra also seems to be the apprehension felt by the educationally-backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by more advanced people of the costal area. ….. Telangana itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra.” All those words now proved correct. Hence, we want T. T shall not be clubbed with other demands

      • Bombay and Mysore states were more advanced than then newly formed Andhra state. Why would be Nehru and Ist SRC object for telangana region (8 districts) of Hyd state merger with Andhra but not to Marathi (5 districts) and Kannada (3 districts) with their parental states?

  5. In reality Telangana has developed a lot compared to Andhra. It is 20 years ahead of Andhra industrially and since Hyderabad was the capital it has developed a lot due to its nice culture and the help of Andhras also. There are 175 central institutions in Hyderabad compared to less than 10 in the rest of Andhra. Agriculturally also Telangana has developed a lot due to the advent of the borewell and completion of SRSP and NSP ayacuts. Most of Andhra is like what it was in 1953 except for Vizag which has developed because of the port and the steel plant, and Tirupati because of the lord and the govt setting up a university/
    Second there is no strong feeling for a united state in the common and a majority of the educated people in Andhra. It is an agitation only being run by the politicians and others who have vested interests in Hyderabad. The proof is when Chandrababu gave a letter to the GoI supporting Telangana there was no opposition to his padayatra in the coastal districts. Any one who is in politics for a long time can easily assess the actual situation.
    In fact it is the Andhras who should agitate to separate because as long as they dont politicians will not work for them but for only developing Hyderabad more and more for improving their real estate interests. The latest example is the setting up of the ONGC regional headquarters in Hyd as opposed to Vijayawada or Rajahmundry from where ONGC gets 36% of its gas income and 15% of its oil income.
    The Congress should assess the situation independently of politicians and give T state and give Andhra a package. Else the BJP will give T state once it comes to power and they will win many seats as some of their bigwigs like Sushma Swaraj are going to contest from Telangana this time. All this council talk is bs and their used to be a council till 1970.

  6. All this angst for Telangana is only a ruse to grab Hyderabad, which commands almost 60 pc of the state’s economy. T-champions are least concerned with 9 districts of Telangana. T fundamentalists want a separate Telangana state with Hyderabad as capital, because that’s where all the moolah is. They will not even let the people outside know that if a new state were to be formed, it would be Andhra and not Telangana, because Hyderabad is geographically located in the T region. It is like Mumbai and its surrounding districts asking the rest of Maharashtra to get out and let them form a new state with Mumbai as their capital.

    • What is this lunatic tale? it does not have any head or tail to it. That explains the emptiness in the opposition to Telangana by these colonial parasites.

      • It is better than your lunatic tale “Telangana was different state from 1948 to 1956”. Telangana was just part of Hyd state like the marathi and kannada regions that merged with then Bombay and Mysore states respectively.

  7. The fact of the matter is ANDRAPRADESH as a state has been in existence for over 56 years. Telangana as a state never existed in the history of the country. This is an indisputable fact. Whatever may be the history,the demand for creation of separate state of Telangana is a political game. Most of the Telangana districts and Hyderabad people are supporting united ANDRAPRADESH, the Central Government has no choice except going by the majority,which is for UNITED ANDRAPRADESH.

    • Dear Mr. Srinivasa reddy (Karimnagar or Kakinada it does not matter)
      Hyderabad state with some parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka was in existence from 1948 to 1952.The people from these parts fondly refer to the erstwhile state as Telangana.Maharashtrians and Kannadigas who had stayed back in Telangana, call themselves proudly as Telanganites and are very much part of the struggle for Telangana state. Whether telangana was a separate state with the name Hyderabad or Telangana it is not very much germane, the fact of the matter is that Telangana region was a separate state. If you do not want to see it that way by your skewered thinking it is alright. But, you can not wish away that historical fact. In 1956, unlike reorganizing some parts on the basis of language in some states, the Andhra state which was with out a capital city worth the name, running its secretariat in pig infested tents,floundering on the border of financial bankruptcy was merged wholesale forcibly with Hyderabad state with a first class capital city and surplus budget,with Telangana with umpteen conditions and agreements. All those agreements were brutally broken with out any exception and andhras started plundering all the resources of Telangana wherever they can lay their hands with their 175 v/s 119 majority. If you want to put your head in to the sand and do not want to see it, it is your problem. But, you can not obliterate these facts with your colored opinions. Another of your opinion that most of the Telangana districts and Hyderabad people supporting united state is a blatant lie even majority of andhras would not agree to it. You may read the provisions in Indian constitution for creation of new states, you will get answer to your another lopsided opinion ‘the Central Government has no choice except going by the majority’. It is better to air our opinions like educated adult peole, it is not proper to vent our prejudices like this in this kind of forums, making a mockery of life and death struggle of people who are trying to come out of oppression over them in the name of majority in a democracy. There is no need to exhibit our ignorance or ethnic arrogance this way. It is not a school debate.

  8. I have not seen a single argument against the author’s views. They seems to be harping on one theme saying that why author wakes up now or having a crash course.

    Telangana supporters always spread lies and does not have a clarity and confused lot. They want wealth creation to be done by other people but does not seem to believe in equal political opportunity.


    • Creation of wealth for whom? Equal political opportunity for whom? The problem is these two are presently for andhras only in the united state.Here are some facts against author’s views, if you can comprehend.
      “The current round of the decades-long Telangana movement began in November 2009……..”
      Telangana movement is not decade long. It is 60 years long. It has started in 1952 against non-mulkis. 5 people died in police firing. It has continued un abated since then. In 1969, 369 youth were brutally killed in police firing. The present episode of Telangana movement was rekindled from 2002 not from 2009. It is Sonia Gandhi who has stoked the fire in 2004 with an alliance with TRS and KCR promising Telangana and came to power in the state. YSR brokered the alliance and once got the power forgot about Telangana and doubled up the plunder of Telangana with a vengeance. Congress looked the other way minding the regular inflows from YSR in to its coffers. The power and the license from his high command had transformed YSR in to a Frankenstein of Congress. As the providence will have it, the Frankenstein met its nemesis in the fateful circumstances. Its monster YSJagan has started extracting its pound of flesh from Congress.YSR’s unprincipled stand on Telangana and his seemandhra chauvinism has reignited Telangana movement in 2009. It has created the kind of unenviable political compulsion for congress party now. That is the impact of an individual on present day congress in the state with astonishing and far-reaching consequences.

      “the tumult on the streets, and the new chief minister’s inability to tackle it, led the Union government to panic. A concurrence with the idea of Telangana was hurriedly announced. In the three years since, the Congress has spent its time explaining away that panic attack and attempting to delay a decision. It appointed the Justice Srikrishna Committee to study the Telangana option. The committee’s report kept one chapter secret because it referred to possible national security challenges arising from a separate Telangana. A covert chapter was the last thing astute politicians would have recommended. It only served to make the atmosphere seem that much more suspicious.”
      I think you are talking about 9, December 2009 declaration of initiation of formation of Telangana state in the Indian Parliament. Its explaining away for the last more than 3 years letting loose a police repression in the state. Keeping the explanation tantalizingly dangling on the heads of Telangana people resulting in 1200 suicide deaths. The SKC report which has made 6 options, 5 of which are a mockery of a judicial commission. In one option they have proposed a corridor of one full district of Telangana as a passage way for Andhra region to Hyderabad city to be made a ’UT’ for the sake of Andhra political merchants. Then there is the 8th chapter which Sri Sanjay Baru in his speech on the release of book ‘Refutation of an Agitation’ in your presence in Delhi called demented but you call it a covert chapter making atmosphere suspicious. Choice of your prose to explain these most brazen undemocratic happenings makes us feel forlorn.

      “Third, ideally a policy decision — any policy decision — should set a precedent and suggest normative benchmarks for the future. This has not and is not happening in the case of Telangana. There is no clarity as to parameters being considered for statehood. The first State Reorganization Commission in the 1950s used the criterion of language, sometimes bunching together linguistically similar segments of different states. In the Northeast, especially following the breaking up of Assam in the 1970s and in the case of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in 2000, the logic of ethnicity was used.
      For better or worse, both these parameters — language and ethnicity — set a precedent.”
      Why normative bench marks now in case of Telangana alone, when it was not the case in case of Andhra getting divided from Madras state and earlier 13 other state divisions/formations? Why the provisions in constitution, the conventions and earlier precedents are not germane and adequate to Telangana demerger? Is Telangana a political orphan in the country for Congress party and andhras to play havoc with it as they like in the last 56 years.
      Yes, for better or worse language, ethnicity and administrative ease have become precedents. In case of Telangana all these parameters are very much relevant. Language Telugu practiced by andhras and Telanganites has wide variation. In fact andhras look down disparagingly the Teleugu language spoken and written by Telanganites and there is a palpable bias against Telangana Telugu by andhras. Ethnicity —-There is a clear distinction in the ethos and culture of andhras and Telanganites.Andhras deliberately created and fostered the gap and the gap is too wide to bridge now. The administrative ease is very much an essential factor in favor of Telangana.For, Telangana state in area would be bigger than at least 10 other states in the country. Referring to Goa makes us wonder on its relevance here.
      As a matter of fact you should know that Telangana was a different state from 1948 to 1952.The SRC did not recommend merger of Telangana with Andhra state. In fact it specifically advised against it clearly visualizing the exploitation of Telangana by andhras, which has become a telling reality now. To understand the magnitude of ‘organized exploitation’ of Telangana by andhras you need to be a part of it. Sri Sanjay Baru admitted that there is enough material to work for 10 PhD dissertations on it. You should understand that Telangana case is totally different from Vidarbha, Harit Pradesh, and Bundelkhand etc.Telangana region was a separate state in independent India and was forcibly merged with Andhra state against the will of its people with several prior agreements. There are irrefutable records showing the breaking of all the agreements. Notable amongst them abrogation of mulki-rules upheld by supreme court; abolition ofTelangana Regional Development Board; sabotage of irrigation, power projects and mines of Telangana ; usurping up of college seats, government jobs; looting of Telangana revenue and its lands etc. In the division of states each case will have to be considered on its peculiar problems. In case of Telangana, when it is a demand for demerger because of the breaking of all and sundry agreements, where is the need for working for a broad agreement for the division of states in entire India? It does sound like pleading for Andhra hegemony.

      Division of a state is the prerogative of Indian government. It can divide the states depending on the exigency .It is an administrative arrangement. It does not change the nature of citizenship of Indians and their rights as guaranteed by the constitution. The provisions for division of states are clearly defined in the constitution and several conventions and practices are created in the formation of 14 new states after independence. They are all functioning well without any problem whatsoever. Then why do we need a bench mark or template now denovo. That too for demerging a state merged with certain pre conditions and the conditions were never fulfilled. Are Telangana people asking for any resource of Andhra? Their relentless struggle is to come out of the yoke of Andhra ‘organized exploitation’, because of the ill-fated merger. Whereas the andhras’ Vishalandhra’ campaign is to keep Telangana people permanently under their yoke. It is a political imperialism in the garb of majority rule in a democracy.

      • Mr Know it all, Hyd state and not telangana was in existence in from 1948 to 1956. Hyd state had 16 districts, 8 telugu [telangana], 5 marathi and 3 kannada districts. It was split and merged with other states on linguistic basis. So telangana was never been a state.
        AP formed in 1956 by merger of telangana and Hyd city with Andhra by Congress, which won AP assembly elections held in 1957 only in telangana (because seema-andhra had them earlier) under the leadership of Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. If telangana people were against the merger, why would they vote to the party (Congress) that responsible for AP creation?
        Lie won’t be become truth even if you say 100 times.

        • Separatists have been saying that they have only been asking for the
          Telangana state that existed prior to 1956. This shows either their
          ignorance or an intention to wilfully distort history. Fact of the matter is,
          there has never been a Telangana state in existence. When India attained
          Independence in 1947, the Hyderabad State ruled by the Nizam was
          made up of Telangana, Marathwada and Kannada-speaking regions.
          In 1956, during the Reorganisation of Indian States along linguistic
          lines, the state of Hyderabad was split up between Andhra Pradesh,
          Bombay state (current Maharashtra) and Karnataka. Hyderabad was the capital of the entire Hyderabad
          State, and not just Telangana. Thus, Telangana State in history was only a figment of separatists’
          imagination and deliberately propagated to mislead the people of Telangana.

  9. Konatham Dileep, Which founding father you are referring to? Is it Nehru who said, Karimnagar is not mine and Hyderabad is not your’s? Or Sardar Vallabhai Patel who integrated India with a vision whose fruits we are seeing now? When Overwhelming majority citizens of AP are AGAINST bifurcation, when every security officer in India is advising against Telangana and when Telangana people are happy withe progress of the region, why these troublemakers are shouting again and again the same thing?

  10. Wise and Intellectual people can only understand this good article, stupids and idiotic people definitely can’t digest these facts. As per our constitution any lunatic one or any lunatic group can ask separate state without any relevance,but national government must act properly without having political motivations.If central government act with political reasons to make separate state it will be harm for our sovereignty.

    • Mr.Sunkara
      ‘As per our constitution any lunatic one or any lunatic group can ask separate state without any relevance’ a very ‘intellectual’ observation. We know your very ‘intellectual’ observations in ‘Vishalandhra Mahasabha’ website on Telangana and its people.They are attracting the law also.

  11. Sri Ashok Malik appearing in the book release function of ‘Refuting an Agitation’, his being with P.Prahbhakar in the video interview after it and now writing this superfluous article all support a pattern. The pattern is enlisting the support of likes of Kuldip Nayyar, Sanjay Baru to lend credence to their hegemony. Is the campaign of refuting the 56 year old agitation, calling the grievances supported by rock proof records, more than 1000 suicides as lies, going to create harmony for the continuation of united state? Generally, there will be agitations to come out of oppression of yoke, but, a campaign to keep people under the yoke against their will is the peculiar style of this Vishalandhra Mahasabha. The very concept of ‘Vishalandhra’ meaning all Andhra, precludes the ethos of Telangana.The abhorrence of everything telangana by these chauvinistic andhras is the basic reason for this imbroglio. Lobbying and corruption for self and pelf is the quintessential characteristic feature of these people. If they have reason they can even try to corrupt ‘Parama Pita Brahma’. History is the witness to it. is borne out of a crusade against corruption. Let it not fall prey to the uncouth lobbying of Vishalandhra Mahasabha, a front for Andhra-political-money -mafia.

  12. This is a fake name Sreenivasa Reddy Karimnagar – invented/created by those who shamelessly practice yellow journalism.

    My dear T-Fighters,
    Don’t waste energy!

    If this person has a real motive to know the truth – he will sincerly clairfy his doubts. Let us use our energy to educate our own peopl in the region.

  13. Mr.VK,
    What is this gibberish? It is not making any sense to any body? At least do you know what you are saying?
    Read recommendation of SRC headed by Justice Fazal Ali on Telangana. Shillong as Mr.Thomas said is in Meghalaya region so it went to Meghalaya,Madras is in Tamilnadu region, so it went to Tamilnadu, Bombay is in Maharashtra region so it went to Maharashtra,Nagpur is in Maharashtra region so it went to Maharashtra. Hyderabad is in the middlle of Telangana region and atleast 200 Km away from your seemandhra border and was capital for Telangana region for the last 400 years and it will be the capital of Telangana State.
    Stop the ‘goebbelese’ and see the reason. Do not assume that your prejudices are the facts.

    • No region has been separated so far with existing capital. Only exception to this is Meghalaya (I have discussed reason[s] for this in one of my comments). This is to avoid administrative inconvenience to the region that didn’t ask for separation. Andhra asked for separation so Madras was given to Tamilnadu. Gujarat asked for separation so Bombay was given to Maharashtra. Unlike you I am not uttering lies such as telangana was a state before AP formation.

      I read 1st SRC and please you also read it once again. It said wait until next elections before merging telangana region with Andhra. However, Hyd state assembly decided to merge telangana with Andhra before that and whose fault was that. If you have any concerns regarding the merger please go and ask them.

      Seema-Andhra was part of Hyd state (Hyd was capital of Nizam Hyd state and not just for telangana) until they were leased by Nizam to British in 1800. So Seema-andhra contributed for Hyd development directly until 1800 and indirectly (through lease by Nizam) until 1947 and again directly from 1956. Not just telangana but Nizam Marathi and Kannada people also contributed for Hyd development until 1956. These are the facts and tell me who is trying to spread lies like telangana was state, Hyd was capital for telangana for 400 years etc.

    • Aditya please don’t feed Andhra trolls. Agree that “The Telangana decision can’t be left to the UPA” .. it can’t be left to people outside Telangana too.. only Telanganites have the right to decide their own future

  14. When Bihar was divided to form Jharkhand, the basis was that tribal were not benefitted and all the rich natural resources in the state was used for the benefit of people of greater Bihar. Traditionally there has always been a divide, with people from North Bihar, dominating the bureaucracy, it at least looked that way. Today when the state is divided, the tribal people of Jharkhand are still living the same life. A few cities have developed well and a lot of new faces on the political wall frame, but what it has left is a state of Bihar left with very little natural resources and industry, people dependent entirely on agriculture, and in that huge area comes under flood or drought every year.
    Division of Andhra Pradesh may also lead to similar situation. The demand for Telangana includes most of the coastal and resource rich area, and Andhra Pradesh will have areas which are most underdeveloped. Even Hyderabad is being demanded to be taken away from Andhra Pradesh and made a part of Telengana.
    Congress as a policy has always avoided formation of states, whatever the reason could be political or theological, however it is true that when the situation aggravates, they have shown silver spoon to cool down the heated moment.

  15. The people of telangana are in dire need for universal acknowledgement of a sub identity as a “telanganite” and the resurgence of movement has given it the required momentum. The need of recoginition for an “identity” based on linguistic or ethnic criteria are justified if there cannot be an option of peaceful existence along with continued supression or dominance by the other group that disrupts daily life. To my knowledge, the state never had a history of targeted violence or any motivated conspiracies of suppression of people of telangana to the point that it disrupted public life. However, all the protagonists of the movement want to dig out the history books, all the agreements and clauses and reassure themselves that they are fighting for a long deprived freedom which none of them is lacking in a democratically functional state. I have deepest respects for the culture, language and people of telangana as any other community, but should a state be divided mainly to boost the morale of a sub identity? I am not sure of speedier development upon creation of a seperate state, but the polarisation of sub-identities pitted against each other will have dire consequences on future generations. A classic case of this as i can already think of would be to rewrite a history book or teach a child saying that ” Bamera pothana – oka telanguvadu kadu oka telangana vaadu).

  16. every ones knows why KCR went for hunger strike… when he wanted to break it. and why he started it again (he got more than 300 crores from gali brothers to continue it). and every one know how he continued it afterwards… anyone can do it for more than 4 months with medications. though everything is dramatic y people still cant understand!!! alas!!! our fate..nothing in our hands… I pity…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.