Telangana Monitor

munna · Post by **munna** » 11 Dec 2009 22:13

shiv wrote:I mean just look at Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Karnakata. Such angels in government and a total population of 250 million plus from just these four. Flamin heck 60 million Karnataka people represented by ONE CM and a few cronies. It's just not on. Divide it up I say.

Yup and each first tier minister of these states presides over budgets equivalent to small and medium sized companies but with skills equivalent of a caveman suddenly transported to a ball room dance.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 11 Dec 2009 22:13

munna wrote:US with less than one third of our population has 50 states and we are doing so much breast beating at mere 29

US is three times the size of India! Why does even the home minister give a reference to this? Is US the gold standard when to comes to all administrative matters? In any case the state divisions in US are nominal compared to the ones (in terms of administration, culture etc.) in India. So the 50 or 500 number is immaterial in US but adds significant costs in terms of different regulations, bureaucracy in the context of India.

Another piece of stat. China with 3 times the geographic size and 1.3 times the population has 23 states + ~4 autonomous regions. Why is that not referred to by every one?

Krishna_V · Post by **Krishna_V** » 11 Dec 2009 22:14

here is a good link on the sorry state of telangana

http://ishare.rediff.com/video/news-and ... ana/953617

Complete video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6611492753#

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 11 Dec 2009 22:24

Uddhav demands Belgaum, border areas for Maharashtra

Opposing demand for a separate state of Vidarbha, Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray said Maharashtra should get Marathi-speaking areas of Belgaum and adjoining areas in Karnataka.

munna · Post by **munna** » 11 Dec 2009 22:31

Masaru wrote:US is three times the size of India! Why does even the home minister give a reference to this? Is US the gold standard when to comes to all administrative matters? In any case the state divisions in US are nominal (they are not) compared to the ones (in terms of administration, culture etc.) in India. So the 50 or 500 number is immaterial in US but adds significant costs in terms of different regulations, bureaucracy in the context of India.

US is a federation and has the concept of states being extremely powerful in a lot of subjects (United States, residuary powers vest in the Lands and the States) while in India states are merely administrative units which can be unilaterally altered in size and scope by the Union (as per the Constitution of India the residuary powers are vested in the Union). The land size is irrelevant to the debate as the point is that India's population is in multiples of the US population and we can certainly do with more states for reasons of competition, efficiencies and local aspirations. The cultural region argument is a strong force behind new aspirant states like Gorkhaland, Budelkhand and all.

Another piece of stat. China with 3 times the geographic size and 1.3 times the population has 23 states + ~4 autonomous regions. Why is that not referred to by every one?

If you want to even consider China in the debate then unfortunately there is no argument cause I would be branded "Evir Sprittist" and will be living in Dharamsala for the rest of my life in exile or worse will vanish in one of those inner Mongolian gulags. Wake up Sirji this is India all have the right to demand a state.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Dec 2009 22:34

Krishna_V garu,

Don't you think one can make an equally heartening/convincing case for a separate state/entity for most of the regions in India?

This is the direction we must not go {http://www.andhrajyothy.com/editshow.as ... ec/11edit4}

For non-Telugu members

One can see the peaceful coexistence of various gulf states that are smaller than many districts in India. Historically tribes with strong henchmen created city-states across the gulf with fishing and trading as their main occupation. With Oil discovery most of the states became rich. Eventhough nearly 40 gulf/arab-states depend upon Abu-Dhabi. The larger states of UAE, KSA, Oman are not able to absorb these smaller states because the smaller state's geographical importance as the trade routes and the influence of external powers such as US, EU, and PRC etc.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 11 Dec 2009 22:37

The root cause for this fiiasco must be laid at Pandit Nehru's feet.

Only a person who has not fully grasped the past history will make such hasty conclusion. BRFites and BRF never ceases to amaze me on the "rhona dhona" {that is cliche phrase, my first time use onlee}. We constantly pat ourselves on our back on how we predict things and lead the way in analyzing issues. The number of times we get things wrong must be astronomical.

Well Nehru was the PM in those years, so definitely his name is going to be dragged onto most of the issues that have origins in the early formative years of modern India. Nehru, Gandhi ithiyadi made decisions based on the circumstances and did not casually make decisions. For all their flaws they had national interests in mind.

There were many people for and against the reorganization. It is easy on hindsight to judge a decision. But let us at least acknowledge the difficulties that those leaders faced.

Let us examine a letter written by Rajendra Prasad to JN.

I am afraid the question will have to be tackled and our hope that by putting it off, we might make things subside, at any rate for some time has not been fulfilled. The Government therefore has to do something to meet the situation which is bound to be graver as days pass.

So instead of having to deal with it every year, it is much better to deal with the whole question all at once. If the idea is to appoint a Commission, it might be asked to consider the question of.......

Of these, we do not hear much from Tamil Nad or even from Gujarat, but when the other States are cut out, they will remain the residuary States....

As you are undoubtedly at the present moment thinking deeply on this matter, I thought I had better indicate my own views. After all the demand for linguistic States is of our own creation which has been there for the last thirty years in actual operation in the Congress constitution.

Rajendra Prasad actually gives a rough sketch on his views of the reorganization; and acknowledges things would have to be worked out.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=uBSEJz ... q=&f=false Go to page: 148

Now let us examine another book: Small states syndrome in India By Braja Bihārī Kumāra. Please search Google books, you will get it. Page 52. The gist of which is:
1. Montagu-Chelmsford Reform favored formation of linguistic States.
2. Annie Besant, Chairperson of the Congress of Calcutta session in 1917 opposed it.
3. Tilak and Gandhi favored it.
4. All-India Congress Committee officially accepted it in 1920.
5. Election manifesto of Congress in 1948 supported it.
6. After independence, national leaders' position on this changed.
7. Now Ambedkar and Gandhi opposed it.
8. Nehru-Patel-Sitarammaiya Committee deliberated it in 1948 and it opposed the formation of linguistic States.
9. Dharm Committee was formed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad to study this again in 1948.

And so on so forth.

There are so many articles and books written on the subject. It is callous and irresponsible for people to place the blame at any one leader. As we can see leaders have changed their stance based on the social circumstances and reality. Nehru was the PM no doubt, and he was key in the decision making. But it is also key for us to understand the circumstances to get a perspective.

As the states after Independence were dismembered according to langauge,and renamed too as Karnataka,Tamilnadu,etc.,

TN was a residual state; and not a cause for the dismemberment.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Dec 2009 22:39

munna wrote:
US is a federation and has the concept of states being extremely powerful in a lot of subjects (United States, residuary powers vest in the Lands and the States) while in India states are merely administrative units which can be unilaterally altered in size and scope by the Union (as per the Constitution of India the residuary powers are vested in the Union). The land size is irrelevant to the debate as the point is that India's population is in multiples of the US population and we can certainly do with more states for reasons of competition, efficiencies and local aspirations. The cultural region argument is a strong force behind new aspirant states like Gorkhaland, Budelkhand and all.

People colonized for so long time take time to decolonize and see the world from their point of view.

Another piece of stat. China with 3 times the geographic size and 1.3 times the population has 23 states + ~4 autonomous regions. Why is that not referred to by every one?

Chinese population density is a major factor of province size.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 11 Dec 2009 22:42

Masaru wrote:
munna wrote:US with less than one third of our population has 50 states and we are doing so much breast beating at mere 29
US is three times the size of India! Why does even the home minister give a reference to this? Is US the gold standard when to comes to all administrative matters? In any case the state divisions in US are nominal compared to the ones (in terms of administration, culture etc.) in India. So the 50 or 500 number is immaterial in US but adds significant costs in terms of different regulations, bureaucracy in the context of India.

Another piece of stat. China with 3 times the geographic size and 1.3 times the population has 23 states + ~4 autonomous regions. Why is that not referred to by every one?

They should bring out solution and sell to people the advantages and bring them to agree.

Instead Congress is choosing a way to prop violence to implement something that has no advantage to the Nation but can have advantages to it.

raghava · Post by **raghava** » 11 Dec 2009 22:43

Division of AP, IMVHO, was swiftly agreed to prevent the rise of Jagan (YS's son).

Both YS and CB Naidu belong to rayalaseema region and so cannot establish a power centre in a future Andhra state or a Telangana state . Without these two gentlemen, congress can buy, blackmail, cajole or coerce whatever feeble opposition there might be and have a decent chance of coming to power by the next general election.

I hope BRFites will pardon me for this armchair analysis but now madam has really got andhra pradesh by its b***ls.

Separate andhra - she ensures there is no alternate power centre a la YSR

Separate telangana - she ensuresthe above AND that congress becomes the saviour of telangana

and if like is evident now the lawmakers want a single AP, - she might appoint a telangana person as CM thereby cutting jagan down to size (which was her primary intention anyway).

The right telangana person as CM will largely be able to prevent a repeat of last week's protests. Parallel back channel deals will quieten down other separatist factions. It could be JC Diwakar Reddy as a counter weight to Jagan or it could be a BC leader as they are perceived to be ignored by Congress.

Question is how will congress deal with other demands of statehood that are surfacing, now that the die has been cast.

JMT

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 11 Dec 2009 22:45

"India" as I see is a grand social experiment, some people thought that religion would be the lowest common denominator of peoples in "India". Then came 1971. Egged on by 1956, both in what is now India and BD, some people believed that language will be the lowest common denominator in the post-71 phase. Come 2009-10, that has also come to pass and as India gets more "mature", more and more clamorings will come around. Perhaps the lowest common denominator is equitable socio-economic development?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Dec 2009 22:47

Stan_Savljevic wrote:"India" as I see is a grand social experiment,

I dont want myself and my folks to be part of any "grand experiment"
Indians have been part of the experiment under the colonial rule for more than 200 years.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 11 Dec 2009 22:52

Next is Tamilnadu.

Karunandhi wants to divide up TamilNadu between his son and his nephew.

Bye bye T-Nadu too!

Its time India has China like Dictatorship to bring order rather than todays anarchy! JMO.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 11 Dec 2009 22:53

raghava wrote:Division of AP, IMVHO, was swiftly agreed to prevent the rise of Jagan (YS's son).

Both YS and CB Naidu belong to rayalaseema region and so cannot establish a power centre in a future Andhra state or a Telangana state . Without these two gentlemen, congress can buy, blackmail, cajole or coerce whatever feeble opposition there might be and have a decent chance of coming to power by the next general election.

I hope BRFites will pardon me for this armchair analysis but now madam has really got andhra pradesh by its b***ls.

Separate andhra - she ensures there is no alternate power centre a la YSR

Separate telangana - she ensuresthe above AND that congress becomes the saviour of telangana

and if like is evident now the lawmakers want a single AP, - she might appoint a telangana person as CM thereby cutting jagan down to size (which was her primary intention anyway).

The right telangana person as CM will largely be able to prevent a repeat of last week's protests. Parallel back channel deals will quieten down other separatist factions. It could be JC Diwakar Reddy as a counter weight to Jagan or it could be a BC leader as they are perceived to be ignored by Congress.

Question is how will congress deal with other demands of statehood that are surfacing, now that the die has been cast.

JMT

This YS Jagan reason is bullshit. Just because they cut Rayalaseema doesnot mean his relatives and beneficiaries will leave their native lands in Telengana. They now made hero out of YS Jagan.

Congress is playing drama from all sides amidst violence that it created.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 11 Dec 2009 22:56

Ok, time to take a look at the Constitution. Source: http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf

THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY
1. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
1[(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as
specified in the First Schedule.]
(3) The territory of India shall comprise—
(a) the territories of the States;
2[(b) the Union territories specified in the First
Schedule; and]
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.
2. Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or
establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it
thinks fit.
32A. [Sikkim to be associated with the Union.] Rep. by the
Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 5 (w.e.f.
26-4-1975).
3. Parliament may by law—
(a) form a new State by separation of territory
from any State or by uniting two or more States or
parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of
any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State:
4[Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be
introduced in either House of Parliament except on the
recommendation of the President and unless, where the
proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries
or name of any of the States 1***, the Bill has been referred
by the President to the Legislature of that State for
expressing its views thereon within such period as may
be specified in the reference or within such further period
as the President may allow and the period so specified or
allowed has expired.]
2[Explanation I.—In this article, in clauses (a) to (e),
"State'' includes a Union territory, but in the proviso,
"State'' does not include a Union territory.
Explanation II.—The power conferred on Parliament
by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or
Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union
territory to any other State or Union territory.]
4. (1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall
contain such provisions for the amendment of the First
Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary
to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also
contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential
provisions (including provisions as to representation in
Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the
State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may
deem necessary.
(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be
an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of
article 368.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 11 Dec 2009 22:56

When India decided on States based on languages, Bangalore and Trivandrum came under Tamilnadu. Since Karnataka and Kerala was left with no big cities, Tamilnadu had to give up Bangalore to Karnataka and Trivandrum to Kerala and to compensate Tamilnadu, A good portion of South Andhra was given to Tamilnadu. During the Cavery water problem, many Kanadigas went about beating up Tamils and they resented that there are so many Tamil land owners in Bangalore. They are clueless that these Tamils did not come over to Karnataka and take land. they have always lived there for generations.

Thats why you have lots of Tamilians with properties in Bangalore and Trivandrum and Lots of people in North Madras are Telugus.

Not many people know this part of History.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Dec 2009 22:59

^^^ No problem with that spirit SwamyG garu,

Why are local congress leaders asking Sonia to "grant" Telangana state? In what capacity she is doing so? Why not MMS spearheading this discussion?

That is the drift we are fighting against.

Krishna_V · Post by **Krishna_V** » 11 Dec 2009 23:00

I am not pitching for separate T-state. I am a settler and I want AP to co-exist but feel sorry for T because their issues are not addressed. AP together holds 42 MPs and have a strong say in the center. State along with T would develop if we are together. But its high time T-issues needs to be addressed so that similar agitation will not pop up again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Dec 2009 23:00

It is very shocking to read the title to this thread. The title is horribly wrong. That is what China wants.

Someone NEEDS to change the title to this thread.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 11 Dec 2009 23:02

Manny wrote:When India decided on States based on languages, Bangalore and Trivandrum came under Tamilnadu. Since Karnataka and Kerala was left with no big cities, Tamilnadu had to give up Bangalore to Karnataka and Trivandrum to Kerala and to compensate Tamilnadu, A good portion of South Andhra was given to Tamilnadu.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 11 Dec 2009 23:03

Manny wrote:When India decided on States based on languages, Bangalore and Trivandrum came under Tamilnadu. Since Karnataka and Kerala was left with no big cities, Tamilnadu had to give up Bangalore to Karnataka and Trivandrum to Kerala and to compensate Tamilnadu, A good portion of South Andhra was given to Tamilnadu.

Thats why you have lots of Tamilians with properties in Bangalore and Trivandrum and Lots of people in North Madras are Telugus.

Not many people know this part of History.

That is because Madras was created from the lands of Telugu Nayakas from what is Chittoor District in AP.

Later, Rayalaseema and Nellore guys contributed a lot to Madras development *. They lost Madras.

They sacrificed their capitol for Hyderabad to develop AP. Now they are losing Hyderabad.

This is big Takleef for Rayalaseema people and now they are asking for separate state with 20+ Lakh crores compensation (~$500 billion at least for now)

If backwardness is criteria, they should have started with Rayalaseema not Telengana for state consideration.

* Of course that doesn't mean Tamils didn't contribute.

munna · Post by **munna** » 11 Dec 2009 23:05

Manny wrote:Its time India has China like Dictatorship to bring order rather than todays anarchy! JMO.

Looks like Hakim sahib has let off another one of those piskology patakha (piskology firework). Mannyji do not let emotions overrule your just and peace loving mind. Please do not advocate such a drastic regime change in India.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 11 Dec 2009 23:06

Rama garu: I can not answer that question, because it will lead me to bad mouthing our leaders and eventual warning/ban to me

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Dec 2009 23:06

Manny wrote:When India decided on States based on languages, Bangalore and Trivandrum came under Tamilnadu. Since Karnataka and Kerala was left with no big cities, Tamilnadu had to give up Bangalore to Karnataka and Trivandrum to Kerala and to compensate Tamilnadu, A good portion of South Andhra was given to Tamilnadu. During the Cavery water problem, many Kanadigas went about beating up Tamils and they resented that there are so many Tamil land owners in Bangalore. They are clueless that these Tamils did not come over to Karnataka and take land. they have always lived there for generations.

Thats why you have lots of Tamilians with properties in Bangalore and Trivandrum and Lots of people in North Madras are Telugus.

Not many people know this part of History.

I was waiting for somebody to bring up the history and derive the states on historical and community connections. This kind of analysis will wake up the Indians to read their history and go back to their roots instead of thinking in false manufactured world.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Dec 2009 23:07

Krishna_V wrote:I am not pitching for separate T-state. I am a settler and I want AP to co-exist but feel sorry for T because their issues are not addressed. AP together holds 42 MPs and have a strong say in the center. State along with T would develop if we are together. But its high time T-issues needs to be addressed so that similar agitation will not pop up again.

I didn't think you were from Telangana region. BTW, the link is not working, kindly correct.

Development of backward regions has to be done, if India wants to develop. Having a separate state might help that cause to some extent, because each state will force creation/development of 1 city to the least.

Extrapolating that logic, we might want to have City-States with ~1Cr population centered in a City (~200-300 Sq KMs) surrounded by farm-lands, forestry, water-sheds, etc. That way we can fast-track the civil-infra development and separate ecologically-sensitive items such as river systems, fresh water lakes, dense farest areas etc from the population centers with the exception of some existing cities.

Perhaps it would be a great idea if done properly.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 11 Dec 2009 23:09

NRao wrote:It is very shocking to read the title to this thread. The title is horribly wrong. That is what China wants.

Someone NEEDS to change the title to this thread.

I agree. It could have been made little more neutral.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 11 Dec 2009 23:09

Please change title of this thread

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 11 Dec 2009 23:12

What is wrong with a state based on language? It allows preservation of language and sub culture.
This blender approach is a western approach that we are trying to copy with massive cultural losses to bharat. Ours is a thali approach where each stream contains an element of truth and the sum of the whole is significantly greater than the parts.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Dec 2009 23:14

Admins

the title is plain silly

at this point the states are not asking to get out of the Indian union

So its completely misleading.

Please change it

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 11 Dec 2009 23:14

ShyamSP wrote: Later, Rayalaseema and Nellore guys contributed a lot to Madras development *. They lost Madras.
<snip> <snip>
* Of course that doesn't mean Tamils didn't contribute.

There is a whole lot of truth to that. Pallavas were prominent in Kanchi. We seldom realize how different yet connected we are (or were in the past). We all have richly contributed to each others welfare. People did not live in isolation; they were influenced or influenced constantly by their immediate neighbors (sometimes by far away people).

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 11 Dec 2009 23:21

Munna: Can you email me at standuude AT yahoo, com? Thanks.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 11 Dec 2009 23:32

munna wrote: US is a federation and has the concept of states being extremely powerful in a lot of subjects (United States, residuary powers vest in the Lands and the States) while in India states are merely administrative units which can be unilaterally altered in size and scope by the Union (as per the Constitution of India the residuary powers are vested in the Union).

If you want to even consider China in the debate then unfortunately there is no argument cause I would be branded "Evir Sprittist" and will be living in Dharamsala for the rest of my life in exile or worse will vanish in one of those inner Mongolian gulags. Wake up Sirji this is India all have the right to demand a state.

Well aware of the legal differences as vested by the respective constitutions. The reference was in context to normal people/business making a living and how easy/difficult it is for them to move across state boundaries. Not from the legal rights perspective.

Is there any guarantee that splitting into more and more states based on pseudo fasts etc. won't create more monsters like Raj Thackeray etc. in the future? Why are there riots against Tams in B'lore and vice versa, and countless such instances in the other states? Any such instances in the US context despite the increased autonomy to state units?

What if tomorrow some x districts of UP or WB or Assam with ~50% IM population decide they want a separate state and imposition of their favorite laws and couple of their 'leaders' go on a fast, what will the GoI response be? After all it would be a valid democratic expression of their interests which has to be upheld! Instead of people learning to get along despite linguistic, cultural, religious, historical differences smaller states tend to solidify these which in long run would be very dangerous.

The China reference is not out admiration for their systems, but to put in context that the only country in similar scale to India is managing perfectly well administratively with 27-28 odd provinces. If PC can cite US as a reference in the context of splitting AP then one can cite PRC as a reference too. OT but going by population metrics and citing the US or any other convenient example one can equally argue for splitting the country itself into more manageable portions as was the wisdom during the 60s.

The core issue is administrative incompetence and naked personal ambition of KCR and Ajit Singh types. All this splitting/reorganising to recognize x difference and y discrimination is just smoke and mirrors which is setting a very dangerous precedence.

munna · Post by **munna** » 11 Dec 2009 23:33

Stan_Savljevic wrote:Munna: Can you email me at standuude AT yahoo, com? Thanks.

You've got mail.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Dec 2009 23:34

It is all good as long as Islamists or Ejs dont control or get to exert their nefarious infulence in newly created states. Ignoring this basic principle can or will be detrimental for achieving internal cohesion .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Dec 2009 23:36

thread title changed.
Rahul.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 11 Dec 2009 23:40

^
Ah this sounds better.... the other one was alarmist.

Krishna_V · Post by **Krishna_V** » 11 Dec 2009 23:41

If at all AP is divided and hyderabad goes to telangana then there are more chances that andhra and rayalaseema will split. unless tirupathi is made capital of the new andhra state. AP is one of the developing states in the country and could go back 15years in development if the the state splits

telangana is asking two things, water for irrigation and jobs for locals

there are various irrigation projects in T-region which are proposed and never started or started but delayed indefinately. If not all atleast few of these projects should be fast tracked and provide jobs for locals. i think this is one of the solutions i can think of without dividing the state

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Dec 2009 23:54

Acharya wrote
I was waiting for somebody to bring up the history and derive the states on historical and community connections. This kind of analysis will wake up the Indians to read their history and go back to their roots instead of thinking in false manufactured world.

How can we bring up something that apparently never existed! This is what our academically approved historians tell us - isnt it? Where was UttarPradesh, MadhyaPradesh, Himachal Pradesh, or the various other "Pradesh"s is History? Even when the term existed in the past, did it mean a separate administrative unit fixed in time? Or did it just mean a region, or the people who lived in a certain region? How strictly were their boundaries defined? What happened to the "border" societies lying in between them?

Then again, were they named and identified so always? Did they become part of larger "states" at time points? What makes only particualr time points, and particular "names" the sole legitimate claimant over that region compared to others?

For example, "Bundelkhand" comes from a particular period in Indian history. But parts of the state were ruled by the Marathas (after initial allied agreements with Chatrashaal) and were ceded to the British as a result of the Anglo-Maratha wars. Why should not Maharashtra not claim a piece of Bundlekhand? Because Maratha claims are of later origin? But we do not acknowledge earlier claims either! For this region was under Kannauj earlier!

When was there a single "Rajasthan" as a rashtra? Why not divide up this state? If Goa should exist as a separate state because of "colonial excuses", why not make Chandernagore in WB a separate state? All three of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka can claim bits and pieces of each other under various regimes, clans, peoples, times! Shouldnt there be a merry go round of new claims?

Why not even smaller states from the Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka side with new bits and pieces of the new Telengana? After all there will always be blurred bioundaries in people/language/dialect/culture at the "contact boundary". Surely a border area of Telengana with Karnataka will have much more in common with Karnataka than the interior of "Telengan"? Why should a future claim for a new sub-state be illegitimate to break up Telengana itself?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 12 Dec 2009 00:00

^^^^ Boss this is India. A civilization with such a long history cannot base everything on historical reasons, else there will be chaos. Everything has to be based on what is best at a particular point in time. We use western constructs like precedent but applying precedent in India, one can go back 7000 years.
Within the broad parameters of Dharma, if a state is formed, it is on the basis of what is good for the future, not past imperative

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Dec 2009 00:01

I agree with you on Irrigation. But one has to be aware of geography, and cost-effective approach to food production. I propose Telangana Farmers should be encouraged to go bio-diesel way using something like Aqua Soil.

W.r.t Job creation - It is a function of stream+quality of education. Without that Telangana people will end-up in low paying jobs. In the past 15 years Hyd-region created nearly 0.5 million high-end jobs. What is not making Telangana graduates compatible for these jobs?

Looks like the public is still expecting the Govt to create millions of administrative-type jobs. This was the case in early independence days, not anymore. S0-called Telangana Intellectuals are hiding this fact from public. The 610 GO hardly transfers few thousand jobs to Telangana. Unless the Telangana Intellectuals expect to transfer all existing job-market from settlers to locals. That is again a function of education and capabilities. How many eligible unemployed telangana IT graduates are there, who can replace the settlers? If there are any, what is stopping them to get in to ever-growing IT sector in the past two decades?