Re: Telangana Monitor
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 03:46
Satya a few posts above you had an insight. Please develop it.
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
All it tells us is the cynical joy you keep getting in the plight of AP and Telugu people. In reality, there is no coastal CM that served long either, except Kasu. When it comes to North Andhra, even a cabinet berth (except PVG Raju) in state govt was a rarity until NTR govt. All it shows is that it was totally random data. From the Raayalaseema record, having dominated the political scene of AP, it is clear that having CM from the region doesn't mean much. Also the only prime minister from AP was from Telangana, who didn't give a hoot about separate T. Pity, what a discrimination?Stan_Savljevic wrote:RamaY wrote: Name - Region - Duration in days
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy[4] - Rayalaseema - 1167
Damodaram Sanjivayya - Rayalaseema - 790
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy (second time) - Rayalaseema - 719
Kasu Brahmananda Reddy - Kosta - 2777
Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao[5] - Telangana - 468
Jalagam Vengala Rao - Kosta/Telangana - 1547
Marri Chenna Reddy - Telangana - 950
Tanguturi Anjaiah [9] - Telangana - 501
Bhavanam Venkatarami Reddy - Kosta - 208
Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy - Rayalaseema - 111
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao - Kosta - 585
Nadendla Bhaskara Rao - Kosta - 31
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao (second time) - Kosta - 1903
Marri Chenna Reddy (second time) - Telangana - 379
Nedurumalli Janardhana Reddy - Kosta - 662
Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy (second time) - Rayalaseema - 794
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao (third time) - Kosta - 263
Nara Chandrababu Naidu[10] - Rayalaseema - 3378
Yeduguri Sandinti Rajasekhar Reddy - Rayalaseema - 1938
Konijeti Rosaiah - Kosta - 448
Kiran Kumar Reddy - Rayalaseema - 316
May be does it tell you that no T CM has been around for quite a while? And that too for no full five year term in a long time. And even if been around, has been primarily from Hyd and could have been perceived as just another person whose care did nt go beyond Greater Hyd. Strange are people's perceptions, no?!
Wait are you saying Kukkatpally is in Old City, its atleast 20km away. Kukkatpally is a locality where a lot of persons with Hi Tech city jobs have settled in.Satya_anveshi wrote:That's a pretty old list RamaY but do you want to identify locations of those univs and see for yourself.
Ramana...most convenient that is located in Kukkatpally which is in old city with majority muslims/telanganites . Would be a great inspirations to the rest of the folks from AP without even knowing such institutions exist.
even as I try to develop on that perspective, I can tell you that if obvious solution is adopted (separating along T/A with Hyd as T capital unconditionally), will put an insourmatable roadblock in their plans. In spite of more powerful forces during Nizam, the region has a religious profile as is today. Even today if you go survey T, you will notice that the children of son of G are mostly non natives. So, the region has proved to be quite resilient.ramana wrote:Satya a few posts above you had an insight. Please develop it.
According to a report in the Indian Express, which quoted Harish Rao, nephew of TRS chief K Chandrasekhar Rao, the party was ready to discuss merger with the Congress if it agreed to create the Telangana state. He also said the TRS did not have a problem accepting Hyderabad as a joint capital till a new capital was developed for Andhra Pradesh.
However, the Congress is not likely to bite the bait, not immediately at least. Its first concern is to protect its political future in the state, one of its last strongholds in the country and find the best way out. Any hurried decision would certainly land it in big trouble in the general elections of 2014.
Meanwhile, the party is busy holding hectic consultations to quell the Telangana fire. On Friday evening, the party’s core committee members, including Pranab Mukherjee, P Chidambaram, AK Antony, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Ahmed Patel, AICC chief Sonia Gandhi’s political secretary, met in New Delhi to discuss the issue. However, the meeting failed to reach any conclusion. Last week, Azad had held discussions with Congress leaders from Telangana, Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra and submitted his report to Sonia Gandhi.
The challenge for the Congress at the moment is two-fold: first, end the ongoing strike and second, come up with some position which would be satisfactory to the members of the Telangana Joint Action Committee, which is spreaheading the movement. The second one is intended to buy more time. The UPA and the Congress need it desperately — the creation of Telangana is almost unstoppable now; both have to ensure it works to their advantage.
so no state funds are used for any of these?vnadendla wrote:Please dig who provided liberal funding for the following:
Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetham
Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam
Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences
Sri Venkateswara University
And for this:
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
You will know why they are where they are.
If they are not in Tirupathi and Puttaparthi there would be no non state funding which is substantial. I Don't know the break down. Now we are talking about non establishment of universities because they don't follow your == principle. Unless you build a hut in T don't build one in rest of AP too.Satya_anveshi wrote:so no state funds are used for any of these?vnadendla wrote:Please dig who provided liberal funding for the following:
Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetham
Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam
Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences
Sri Venkateswara University
And for this:
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
You will know why they are where they are.
Can you get any foolish than this? there is NO "hut" in T. Now, Ramana tells us that even NIT at waranga (although it was nationally funded)l was a result of more of a miscalculation/myopia from that basker sanjeeva reddy than a sincere and concious move on st admin's part. Here you folks are defending the indefensible. And considering your inability to distinguish between two set of arguments..here they are: a) build all you want in A, build also in T; b) if you aren't building in T, don't build in A also. My position and those that I heard coming out of T is of a). ALL agreements including the latest were explicit on providing fair opportunities for T areas.vnadendla wrote:Now we are talking about non establishment of universities because they don't follow your == principle. Unless you build a hut in T don't build one in rest of AP too.
All it tells me is the following: when someone questions you when you cite some random person's page no 186-187 as proof of your understanding of the complicated ground reality, and when you dont expect to be handed out reverse pisko in the aftermath, either you expect that someone must be god which he aint, or you get too uncomfortable when questioned, or both .Dasari wrote: All it tells us is the cynical joy you keep getting in the plight of AP and Telugu people.
...
Indeed people's perceptions are very weird. Some people are struggling not to break the state, while others, not even related to the state, are trying to settle some old scores.
Satya_anveshi wrote:Can you get any foolish than this? there is NO "hut" in T. Now, Ramana tells us that even NIT at waranga (although it was nationally funded)l was a result of more of a miscalculation/myopia from that basker sanjeeva reddy than a sincere and concious move on st admin's part. Here you folks are defending the indefensible. And considering your inability to distinguish between two set of arguments..here they are: a) build all you want in A, build also in T; b) if you aren't building in T, don't build in A also. My position and those that I heard coming out of T is of a). ALL agreements including the latest were explicit on providing fair opportunities for T areas.vnadendla wrote:Now we are talking about non establishment of universities because they don't follow your == principle. Unless you build a hut in T don't build one in rest of AP too.
You are not getting it. govt didn't build those (in my list). We got funding from outside and worked with govt to provide a piece too. Now why don't we find such involvement from T society.
I don't wish ill for T. I am AP son and T son in Law. Why do you think if someone disagrees with you they wish ill of you.
Not even staunchest of T supporter has wished bad for A...they just want to secure T for themselves.
alludugaru (dear son-in-law) ,vnadendla wrote:You are not getting it. govt didn't build those (in my list). We got funding from outside and worked with govt to provide a piece too. Now why don't we find such involvement from T society.
I don't wish ill for T. I am AP son and T son in Law. Why do you think if someone disagrees with you they wish ill of you.
It is NOT the business of govt to do the things you expect it to do. People should take care of themselves. Govt provides the atmosphere and the governance and some funding. Your leaders were idiots. Your rich people were greedy. Don't blame someone else for being wealthy. Those institutions were set up with the temple money (and a godman) and with lot of hardwork largely unpaid / underpaid by a lot of people (including my dad, my sanskrit teacher / neighbour and many more I know personally). I and my family studied, worked or otherwise involved with them. It is strange to find someone suddenly talk of them and complain why they don't have them. Its because you don't have people who can make them happenSatya_anveshi wrote:alludugaru (dear son-in-law) ,vnadendla wrote:You are not getting it. govt didn't build those (in my list). We got funding from outside and worked with govt to provide a piece too. Now why don't we find such involvement from T society.
I don't wish ill for T. I am AP son and T son in Law. Why do you think if someone disagrees with you they wish ill of you.
how long are we going to talk about this? There were systemic issues for this. paradigm shift in admin process in T; power play - dominated by A; ministeries - dominated by A; T farmers - weakened by additional cost of farming (depriving irrigation project supplying water to fields which was a norm before merger; jobs and dev - disportionately concentrated in Hyd; how the hell do you expect to have 'private' participation.
Granted, if there is/was capital available in T, AND they did not make those investments - they are at fault. But that in comparision with state and by and large institutional neglect of the region? clutching at the straws?
I am done with posts on this topic with you.
If there is no second opinion about Hyderabad, others might argue;chaanakya wrote:There is already a precedence of non linguistic division of States on various grounds, primarily smaller states are better administered. One need to do reality check if this idea has indeed been proven. All such non linguistic divisions were followed mostly by non violent demands. Telangana would be an exception.
Therefore all talk of old culture, language and history would be irrelevant if Majority of T People want it.
I think new states would get better opportunity in terms of attracting new industries just like Uttarakhand.
And if T is there Hyd would be its capital, no second opinion about it, one might keep arguing against .
yeah , i.e. if these six districts are asking for GR and if demand is from majority. Not seen yet.ShyamSP wrote: If there is no second opinion about Hyderabad, others might argue;
"If there is Rayalaseema, it would get 4 districts from Karnataka and 2 districts from Tamil Nadue, no second opinion about it"
http://www.gulte.com/news/1258/Greater- ... gans-Plot-
"...The organization for greater RayalaSeema is demanding the separate state including the 2 districts of Tamil Naidu and another 4 districts of Karnataka where Telugus live in significant numbers...."
Define majority. majority of AP wants unified state. majority of Hyd wants union territory if there is no unified AP. Why should those majorities be ignored?chaanakya wrote:yeah , i.e. if these six districts are asking for GR and if demand is from majority. Not seen yet.ShyamSP wrote: If there is no second opinion about Hyderabad, others might argue;
"If there is Rayalaseema, it would get 4 districts from Karnataka and 2 districts from Tamil Nadue, no second opinion about it"
http://www.gulte.com/news/1258/Greater- ... gans-Plot-
"...The organization for greater RayalaSeema is demanding the separate state including the 2 districts of Tamil Naidu and another 4 districts of Karnataka where Telugus live in significant numbers...."
Okay, it is time that center declares the process and deadline for the final Telangana formation rather than keeping it in "hopeful" situation.chaanakya wrote:There is an interesting discussion going on in NDTV.
TRS leader says that now it is not an agitation for Telangana but "we won't give you Hyd" agitation.
Seems almost everyone is giving in to the formation of T and only question remains is that of Hyd. Now Its only a matter of details.
Another Interesting point was that Muslims would have more % of votes and would have better say in T.
Ethno-liguistic culture is also same within permissible variations within AP so that can not be a ground for split.
Economic backwardness is found in many parts of the Country and that also is not the basis for separate state.
TRS leader says what is the guarantee for others not asking for separate states if T agitation is stopped. None forthcoming.
What could be the basis for forming a new state apart from linguistic basis?? No answer.
In conlc. status quo is not the option.
No, only the random pages you cite or the cut and paste technology you employ are the only qualified rational logic. You talk about ground reality with irrelevant posts and references as if that should freeze everybody else. You don't know Hyderabad demographics or have an iota of knowledge of AP demographics but very anxious to see the state split off. This is from a guy who looks to rub off Tamil chauvinism at every opportunity. Sorry to disappoint you that at the end of this movement, regardless of how it ends, the Telugu people of AP will come together as language has that power. So don't lose sleep on this.Stan_Savljevic wrote:All it tells me is the following: when someone questions you when you cite some random person's page no 186-187 as proof of your understanding of the complicated ground reality, and when you dont expect to be handed out reverse pisko in the aftermath, either you expect that someone must be god which he aint, or you get too uncomfortable when questioned, or both .Dasari wrote: All it tells us is the cynical joy you keep getting in the plight of AP and Telugu people.
...
Indeed people's perceptions are very weird. Some people are struggling not to break the state, while others, not even related to the state, are trying to settle some old scores.
It is not about Telagana but political machinations by Congress and BJP. Having Telangana name gives legitimacy to those machinations.chaanakya wrote:TRS leader says that now it is not an agitation for Telangana but "we won't give you Hyd" agitation.
They have many balls left as all they have been doing are no-balls so far.Muppalla wrote:Okay, it is time that center declares the process and deadline for the final Telangana formation rather than keeping it in "hopeful" situation.chaanakya wrote:There is an interesting discussion going on in NDTV.
TRS leader says that now it is not an agitation for Telangana but "we won't give you Hyd" agitation.
Seems almost everyone is giving in to the formation of T and only question remains is that of Hyd. Now Its only a matter of details.
Another Interesting point was that Muslims would have more % of votes and would have better say in T.
Ethno-liguistic culture is also same within permissible variations within AP so that can not be a ground for split.
Economic backwardness is found in many parts of the Country and that also is not the basis for separate state.
TRS leader says what is the guarantee for others not asking for separate states if T agitation is stopped. None forthcoming.
What could be the basis for forming a new state apart from linguistic basis?? No answer.
In conlc. status quo is not the option.
Any alternative such as financial devolution packages to three regions with a regional councils and not giving Telangana at this time will be end of AP government and also future of congress party in AP.
Last ball and six has to be scored by center. Let us see
ShyamSP wrote:It is not about Telagana but political machinations by Congress and BJP. Having Telangana name gives legitimacy to those machinations.chaanakya wrote:TRS leader says that now it is not an agitation for Telangana but "we won't give you Hyd" agitation.
Good. It will put an end to the T nuisance so people across AP go on their normal business. If SRC looks at across country and comes up with division criteria, it is well and good. A fair SRC will not have T as state as it is argued now.Narayana Rao wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 294416.cms
The above news item is quite interesting one coming at this stage and there seems to be a mega dragging of feet underway as per this news item in DC which is a traditional pro-congress paper about the T question being referred to SRC.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... -t-src-605
Please refer my posts on that subject in this thread.devesh wrote:ShyamSP wrote: It is not about Telagana but political machinations by Congress and BJP. Having Telangana name gives legitimacy to those machinations.
make up your mind. on one hand, you insist BJP is a zero in AP, and on the other hand you insist that BJP's "machinations" are causing T problem. it is the politico-criminal networks that are important. as of now, BJP has nil presence in these networks in AP. their recent activism is a generally positive trend. but their ability to influence these extra-legal networks in AP is non-existent at present. it could slowly change in the future.
Yesterday on NDTV, Sri Owaisi of MIM also used the same BJP thing to oppose T. He mentioned that just like NDTV did a story of unmarked graves in J&K, it will soon do a story on marked graves in the new state of T ( if it is approved) since the only beneficiary of T would be the BJP and there would be lots of graves ( assuming of IMs) beacuse of that..make up your mind. on one hand, you insist BJP is a zero in AP, and on the other hand you insist that BJP's "machinations" are causing T problem. it is the politico-criminal networks that are important. as of now, BJP has nil presence in these networks in AP. their recent activism is a generally positive trend. but their ability to influence these extra-legal networks in AP is non-existent at present. it could slowly change in the future.