Telangana Monitor

KSKumar · Post by **KSKumar** » 16 Dec 2009 00:10

ramana wrote:PRP leader wants his group to take back the resignation. His MLAs say its difficult to hang in when all are quitting to support united Andhra issue. Is he back to his games?

Raman,

Chiranjeevi's party is an infant. The MLAs quit without much consultation with him. I would read it more as a reaction of person who finds his authority totally compromised. He has failed to enthuse the voters and now his folk takes its own decisions. What good is he then? Hence, his dilemma.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Dec 2009 00:19

KSKumar wrote:
ramana wrote:PRP leader wants his group to take back the resignation. His MLAs say its difficult to hang in when all are quitting to support united Andhra issue. Is he back to his games?
Raman,

Chiranjeevi's party is an infant. The MLAs quit without much consultation with him. I would read it more as a reaction of person who finds his authority totally compromised. He has failed to enthuse the voters and now his folk takes its own decisions. What good is he then? Hence, his dilemma.

People of Tirupati are asking him to resign. He cannot win Tirupati anymore. He lost from his native (actually wife's) constituency in last elections. Even before this crisis, his own MLAs weren't listening to him anyway so nothing surprising now as this gave them reason to jump out of party truck.

That brings another point that all elected people need to seek fresh mandate from the people. Central Congress (not YSR congress) will win 0 seats in Rayalseema-Coastal AP given current circumstances.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 16 Dec 2009 01:00

ramana wrote:TVR Shenoy provides a history of how linguistic states came about. it wasn't with Sri Potti Sriramulu's fast unto death but in 1920 itself when pradesh Congress Committees were organised on linguistic basis.

TVR Shenoy is missing the forest for the woods. Congress was not a monolith in those days. It responded to people's demands and conformed to different perceptions to varying degrees. A movement such as Congress, as big as it became under different folks, would not have been possible unless it accepted rational demands and incorporated them. It would be odious to compare INC of those days to Hinduism as it is now, but eh what the heck, I will make it. The reorganization of CCs on a linguistic basis was pushed forth by many regional leaders who were tall themselves.

In fact, much later T. Prakasam put a dissenting note on the merger of Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra right after Potti Sriramulu's death, JLN acceded to the demand for a state for Telugu-speaking peoples. Telengana's accession in 1956 when Op. Polo happened in 1948 means that there were various pushes and pulls before the right stars aligned for such a merger to happen. In fact, till the merger between seema and costa could happen, not much could be done with pieces from Nizam's kingdom. There was another major back and forth between merging some pieces to Vidarbha and some to KA and some to what is now Chattisgarh. It was not all peaceful, as people may think. There was much violence, at least the verbal one, how could have Gandhian progenies indulged in that, who would have thunked that?! Indian geography even in the post-47 era has not been stable, it keeps moving and there are divisions and mergers. It is only us who see a snapshot of the Indian polity that think that things have always been this way.

Btw, VP Menon's tome on the integration of the princely States into the Indian Union, despite VPM's bile on the brits, much of it understandable and justified, provides a major insight into what happened in the post-Polo phase. He devotes three chapters to Hyderabad while he devotes just one (or less) to most of the biggies including his own Travancore state. The book, if folks have not read it, is a monumental exercise in putting Sardarji in a spot that he deserves. I may not be wrong if VPM was the first to call Sardar, Sardar.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2009 03:39

DNA writes:

P Chidambaram spooked Centre into splitting Andhra Pradesh

No comments.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2009 03:43

DNA News Story

P Chidambaram spooked Centre into splitting Andhra Pradesh

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 16 Dec 2009 04:57

^^^^
As usual BRF is ahead of the curve.

Chidambaram feels Telangana heat

An emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) convened by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday night took no decision on the vexed Telengana.

Choosing to keep mum on the issue, the meet felt any decision will only trigger more protests and violence, while stressing the need to restore peace and harmony in Andhra Pradesh.

Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar was forthright in seeking clarifications from Home Minister P Chidambaram on announcing the decision of the Congress Core Committee on Telangana as the United Progressive Alliance's . The argument was picked up by Mamta Banerjee. She went to the extent of saying, "Will you all come and face the West Bengal electorate?" Dravida Munnetra Kahzagam's Dayanidhi Maran , too, took on the home minister on the Telangana tangle.

A one-liner by Harish Khare, media adviser to the prime minister, "The CCPA took stock of the situation in Andhra Pradesh and appeals to the people and all political parties in Andhra Pradesh to maintain peace and harmony."

Sources said Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee prevailed in the meeting to give priority to return of normalcy in Andhra Pradesh. He said any decision on Telangana would come only if the Andhra Pradesh Assembly unanimously adopts a resolution for creation of the separate state.

Pranab Mukherjee, who headed a sub-committee on Telangana during the first tenure of UPA, said that issue was too sensitive and emotional.

"I understood it, but when such a major issue was being announced, it was the Congress duty to have taken the NCP, TMC and DMK into confidence." By this remarks, Pranab was clearly hinting at the PMO and the home minister as well.

Some members wanted that the government to clarify Home Minister P Chidambaram's remark on Telangana that triggered violence in Andhra Pradesh, but Mukherjee shot down the idea, pointing out that he had just said that the Assembly would pass the resolution for Telangana.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2009 05:09

Politicsparty guy says there are widespread movements form Rajasthan to Assam to create new states. And politicians meeting to decide course of action all over India.

He does get hyper but still does convey info. The main message is there are widespread moves to demand new states all over India. Looks like MHA mis-read the issues in their haste.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Dec 2009 05:23

- So Chidambaram gave Maoism as one of major reasons for separate state

- Pillay said Hyderabad was part of Telengana so Telengana leaders don't scale down

- Veerappan Moily/Ahamad Patel coordinated with KCR to do fasting so his fast breaking,
Telangana announcement came as Sonia's birthday gift

- When initial response for KCR fasting was timid, Police beat the heck out of students to rabble-rouse
and piss them off.

- Lagadapati resigned and was silent for two days in Delhi (he maybe watching peoples' reaction and
strategized his moves along with somebody (who?))

- YS Jagan broke silent on 5th day called for united AP

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Dec 2009 05:25

AP people should press for Chidambaram, Moily, Pillay resignations as the first step for creating crisis.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 16 Dec 2009 05:47

This is such a circus. Is there anything in the Constitution that clarifies the actual process?

only if the Andhra Pradesh Assembly unanimously adopts a resolution for creation of the separate state.

So when the Union Mantri for Opening Big Mouth and Starting Riots announced Telangana's creation, THIS was what he meant?
He could have in the same breath announced the amendment of everything in the Constitution, since those are far more feasible, requiring only 2/3 majority in Parliament.

Who compensates the innocents hurt by this nonsense?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Dec 2009 05:57

^^^^
As usual BRF is ahead of the curve.

Except that the reasons that were attributed in BRF for PC's actions is different from what is described in that link.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Dec 2009 06:05

Yes Article 3 of the constitution.

Removing all mumbo-jumbo, parliament can create, divide, modify states, their names and capitals with a simple majority.

Thats the ONLY official process. Rest is politics and save your a$$ pushing the buck.
That is why in the previous page, it was asked- in what capacity did PC say that? Because as a central home minister, he doesnt need the state resolution. If it is as a INC/UPA representative, any attacks on him are fair game.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Dec 2009 06:07

enqyoob wrote:This is such a circus. Is there anything in the Constitution that clarifies the actual process?

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.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Dec 2009 06:09

enqyoob wrote: Who compensates the innocents hurt by this nonsense?

if only

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Dec 2009 09:47

ShyamSP wrote:AP people should press for Chidambaram, Moily, Pillay resignations as the first step for creating crisis.

So fast? They are directly doing pindam (post-death ceremony)

http://i47.tinypic.com/331zldt.jpg

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 16 Dec 2009 10:02

- River Systems: Nationalize all water resources. Create a central fund to build smaller reservoirs (1-10 TMC capacity) in each district and connect them with dams and irrigation systems. Each TMC can support irrigation in 10,000 acres.
- Minerals: Nationalize them. All the mine leases will be distributed among all states equally.
- Education: Standardized education with central support for mid-day meals and syllabus.

By "mine lease", do you mean mineral royalties?

..... If we decentralize the central government and give power to the panchayats at each village. Power to do following ...
1. Hire/Fire/elect police officers.
2. Hire/Fire/Elect school/college administrators/teachers.
3. Hire/Fire/elect hospital/dispansry adminstrators/nurses/doctors. ....

Dear All,

Pls propose DRAFT of the laws you are proposing. Not that I oppose the laws you are proposing, I support most of above. But unless DRAFTS are there, one cant really confirm his opposition or support

===

Re: Reducing existing strife in AP

I propose following law , which can be passed by citizens at National or AP level to reduce the fire in AP : Five years from now, there will be referendum in Telangana area (former Nizam area) if they want to split away, and the voters in that referendum will be those who are existing voters and their kids who will turn 18 then. I am not posting the DRAFT as draft for this law is trivial.

This will convince Telangana people that they will have final say in five years. And this will give last five years to AP people to reduce the injustice (yes, it exists !!) that people in Telangana are facing. If APites are serious about keeping AP intact, they better reduce the injustice and convince the people. Otherwise, referendum will not be in their favor. Anybody got any better law to reduce existing mess in AP?

===

Re: Reducing hunger strike's blackmail effect

I propose following law to end this hunger strike blackmail.

1. Any citizen can propose an affidavit for Rs 20 fee demanding that Mr. ABC on hunger strike should be "force fed" by nailing him on bed and using glucose etc

2. Any citizen go to Talati's office, pay Rs 3 fee and register support (YES) on this affidavit. His name will also come on the website of PM

3. The decision of PM, CM will be final and they need not take YES-NO count into account.

Now how does this law reduce blackmail from hunger strike? Consider KCR on hunger strike. Given the media publicity, everyone in Telangana knew. Now citizens of Telangana have two choices : they ask CM to force-feed KCR or they dont ask so. In former case, the CM can claim that he is force-feeding KCR because citizens want and it is humane thing to do. And in latter case, citizens will get blamed for not feeding KCR and resulting death of KCR, in case he dies at all. IOW, the above proposed law passes the moral burden force feeding or letting the person die on citizens. Not even 10% citizens would like this moral burden on their head. So significant number, if not majority, will end up asking CM to force feed KCR. And so blackmail of hunger strike will vanish. Anybody got any better law to reduce the blackmail of hunger strike?

====

Re : Motives behind splitting AP, UP etc

It was MNC decision, and Sonia/PC/MMS have no choice to follow. And BJP leaders too have no choice, as they depend heavily on MNCs. The MNCs want to trifurcate AP and many states as each of the 2-3 mini CMs will be easy to deal with. It is easier to control and even replace a CM in state which has (120, 120, 70) MLAs than a State which has 294 MLAs. Also, dividing states helps National leaders in Congress as well as BJP. Consider so called "national leaders" like Sonia, MMS, PC or Jetley, Sushma, D4 etc. The state leaders like Jagan, Modi etc are too big for them to control. But if States split into 2-3, then each State leader will be dwarfer, and easier to deal with and control. Sonia, MMS and PC are 100% MNC puppies. They announced decision to split AP without consulting any Minister, because they knew that Pawar, Mamta and even Pranav would oppose. Not even one Congress MP, forget Congress MPs from AP were referred.

Mayawati too had no choice but to accept this MNC demand. "Better join MNCs, if you cant beat MNCs" is the strategy Mayawati was forced to follow.

=====

The analogy with US is nonsense. US is 3 times the land area, and yet has only 50 states. So going by US standard, we need 17 states. And Texas is 3 times the size of UP and never needed a split. The 50 States in US because of historical reasons, not efficiency reasons. Only 4 states divided so far

1. Maine (North wanted two extra votes in Senate, as South got one more State)
2. West Virgina (due to civil war)
3. Kentuky
4. [One more I forgot]

And all this was 150 years ago, when distance did matter. In the age when everyone can be given a free mobile and land line phone and every Tahsil can have a video link with State Capital as well as Delhi, distance is non-issue. And population is another nonsense. Consider the following example to show that population is useless reason : Say we need one doctor for 1000 citizens ; so if population doubles, we need twice many doctors ; but we dont need one more health Minister. The Ministers take policy decision and dont attend individual cases. So notion that "we need more Ministers, more CMs because we have more population" is useless. The mediamen and assorted intellectuals are supporting "more states" demand only because MNCs are paying them to write so.

.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 16 Dec 2009 10:37

Re: Reducing existing strife in AP

I propose following law , which can be passed by citizens at National or AP level to reduce the fire in AP : Five years from now, there will be referendum in Telangana area (former Nizam area) if they want to split away, and the voters in that referendum will be those who are existing voters and their kids who will turn 18 then. I am not posting the DRAFT as draft for this law is trivial.

This will convince Telangana people that they will have final say in five years. And this will give last five years to AP people to reduce the injustice (yes, it exists !!) that people in Telangana are facing. If APites are serious about keeping AP intact, they better reduce the injustice and convince the people. Otherwise, referendum will not be in their favor. Anybody got any better law to reduce existing mess in AP?

A feasible proposal.

It should be applied to all States where there is the demand for smaller States.

It will also give some breathing space to the Central and the State governments.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Dec 2009 10:59

RayC wrote:
Re: Reducing existing strife in AP

I propose following law , which can be passed by citizens at National or AP level to reduce the fire in AP : Five years from now, there will be referendum in Telangana area (former Nizam area) if they want to split away, and the voters in that referendum will be those who are existing voters and their kids who will turn 18 then. I am not posting the DRAFT as draft for this law is trivial.

This will convince Telangana people that they will have final say in five years. And this will give last five years to AP people to reduce the injustice (yes, it exists !!) that people in Telangana are facing. If APites are serious about keeping AP intact, they better reduce the injustice and convince the people. Otherwise, referendum will not be in their favor. Anybody got any better law to reduce existing mess in AP?
A feasible proposal.

It should be applied to all States where there is the demand for smaller States.

It will also give some breathing space to the Central and the State governments.

I don't know what is going on in JK. Why do I care in knowing truth, I'll say Indians committed injustice to Kashmir. Let's give it to Pakis.
Looks like your kind will sell Kashmir in two days.

PS: I know what Rayc did. My crib is on blindly accusing AP (???) people and not knowing the issues.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2009 11:16

Its mainly in INC ruled states that this virus of spliitism is wreaking havoc: Andhra Pradesh(Telangana), Maharastra(Vidharba), Rajasthan(M Pradesh), Assam (Bodoland). Others are UP and West Bengal.

Is the INC itself becoming the engine for reversing Sardar Patel's work? Eventhough these splitist movements are in core or heartland states they really are centrifugal tendencies against INC central domination. So this redrawing states is really a INC internal power struggle being masked with a facade of people's demands.

The earlier instances of Punjab and UP & MP are not in same category.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 16 Dec 2009 11:17

Rahul Mehta: I propose following law , which can be passed by citizens at National or AP level to reduce the fire in AP : Five years from now, there will be referendum in Telangana area (former Nizam area) if they want to split away, and the voters in that referendum will be those who are existing voters and their kids who will turn 18 then. I am not posting the DRAFT as draft for this law is trivial. ....

RayC: A feasible proposal. It should be applied to all States where there is the demand for smaller States. It will also give some breathing space to the Central and the State governments.

ShyamSP I don't know what is going on in JK. Why do I care in knowing truth, I'll say Indians committed to injustice to Kashmir. Let's give it to Pakis. Looks like your kind will sell Kashmir in two days. PS: I know what Rayc did. My crib is blindly accusing AP (???) people and not knowing the issues.

ShyamSP,

The referendum-based proposal I stated is about State-splitting and not secession.

And as far as JK goes, I have stated my JK related laws I proposed JK thread. In a nut shell, the laws will give a "good deal" every JK secessionist - a deal so good that he wont ask for secession for next 200 years. I have stated the details in JK thread and they are also given on my website. I dont want to put them here. So lets not mix State Splitting with secession. Former demand is from bonafide citizens while latter is from enemies.

Now about "injustice" from coastal-APites on Telanganites. Are you claiming that it doesnt exist at all? They why do highly educated Telugu lawyers in Telangana want separate State? Why was there fist fight in AP- High Court between pro-Telangana Telugu lawyers and anti-Telangana Telugu lawyers? And that too, a fist fight so intense that all HCjs had to flee and HC was practically shut down for days? Did PC, Sonia etc paid all these pro-Telangana lawyers to fight? I agree that KCR was a puppet on hire. So was much of media. But you cant hire 1000s of lawyers, 1000s of teachers, lakhs of students and millions of commons. No one has that kind of money and strength. And if they do, why cant they revive "separate Saurashtra" demand that was powerful in early 1950s?

===

ramana wrote:Its mainly in INC ruled states that this virus of spliitism is wreaking havoc: Andhra Pradesh(Telangana), Maharastra(Vidharba), Rajasthan(M Pradesh), Assam (Bodoland). Others are UP and West Bengal.

Gujarat was INC ruled till 1975. And Gujarat had demand for separate Saurashtra in late 1940s and early 1950s. The demand evaporated by 1955. IOW, demand of state splitting is NOT linked with INC.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Dec 2009 11:22

Rahul Mehta wrote:
Rahul Mehta: I propose following law , which can be passed by citizens at National or AP level to reduce the fire in AP : Five years from now, there will be referendum in Telangana area (former Nizam area) if they want to split away, and the voters in that referendum will be those who are existing voters and their kids who will turn 18 then. I am not posting the DRAFT as draft for this law is trivial. ....

RayC: A feasible proposal. It should be applied to all States where there is the demand for smaller States. It will also give some breathing space to the Central and the State governments.

ShyamSP I don't know what is going on in JK. Why do I care in knowing truth, I'll say Indians committed to injustice to Kashmir. Let's give it to Pakis. Looks like your kind will sell Kashmir in two days. PS: I know what Rayc did. My crib is blindly accusing AP (???) people and not knowing the issues.
ShyamSP,

The referendum-based proposal I stated is about State-splitting and not secession.

And as far as JK goes, I have stated my JK related laws I proposed JK thread. In a nut shell, the laws will give a "good deal" every JK secessionist - a deal so good that he wont ask for secession for next 200 years. I have stated the details in JK thread and they are also given on my website. I dont want to put them here. So lets not mix State Splitting with secession. Former demand is from bonafide citizens while latter is from enemies.

Sure. Please propose referendum-based solutions for state reorganization.

Don't bring lies like AP people doing injustices and other unknowing issues.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Dec 2009 11:42

There are parallels between what is happening in Pakistan and what is happening here. but at a more sedate and covert fashion.

The oil droplet theory is valid here.

Poeple clamoring for development of these N KA and Vidaarbha and Teleganana by breaking them away from mother states need to realize these areas formed the erstwhile Bahmani states...Bijapaur, Golkonda, Bidar, Berar, Ahmednanagar etc.

It is one step closer to a mini Muslim state in the heartland of India. The mini droplets breaking away from their mother states will combine to form a bigger droplet....Osmanistan may yet see the light of the day.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 16 Dec 2009 11:47

It is one step closer to a mini Muslim state in the heartland of India. The mini droplets breaking away from their mother states will combine to form a bigger droplet....Osmanistan may yet see the light of the day.

Seems a tad far-fetched to me. Political power no longer rests absolutely with a muslim elite in this area. Besides, awareness is higher regarding what sickness the bahmani states represented. Nobody, not even the MIM dares praise the razakars despite descending fromt he razakars themselves. And any razakar like activity will not be tolerated forever but is likely to be crushed like the vermin it is. Or so I hope.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 16 Dec 2009 12:08

Rahul Mehta wrote:Gujarat was INC ruled till 1975. And Gujarat had demand for separate Saurashtra in late 1940s and early 1950s. The demand evaporated by 1955. IOW, demand of state splitting is NOT linked with INC.

Saurasthra was always a separate state from Gujarat, formed by the merger of princely states in the Kathiawar Peninsula. This state was merged into Bombay in 1956, and when Bombay State was divided by the linguistic formula in 1960, Saurashtra ended up with Gujarat.

The same thing happened with Kutch, which was always a separate kingdom.

Curiously this situation is the opposite of Andhra-Telengana, because here the rich areas (Gujarat proper) were historically under foreign rule (British and before them Mughal) while Kutch and Saurashtra were mostly under indigenous rulers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2009 12:38

One solution to the problem in Telengana/AP is to rename the state as ,the state of
"Telengana and Andhra Pradesh",with two administrative areas,a separate one for Telengana and one for the rest,but just one Assembly with H'bad the capital.We have the state of J&K,so why can't this be an acceptable compromise ?After all,in the two regions,everyone speaks Telegu.The billions invested in Hyderabad can be shared by the whole lot.If the leaders of the Telengana agitation have humble intentions and not hug egos lusting after the CMs and ministerial posts,this could calm the waters.

Gorkhaland is another matter as the Gurkhas want a state to further and give expression to their different identity in comparison with Bengalis and W.Bengal.Some of the other "splittist" entities do have genuine merit in their demands,but a parliamentary committe especially set up for the purpose should study the cases individually and see how the grievances can be met.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 16 Dec 2009 12:45

Paul wrote:Poeple clamoring for development of these N KA and Vidaarbha and Teleganana by breaking them away from mother states need to realize these areas formed the erstwhile Bahmani states...Bijapaur, Golkonda, Bidar, Berar, Ahmednanagar etc..

Similar thoughts came to my mind ! We can add harith pradesh that ! A seperate state of harith pradesh will have a solid muslim majority !
But one thing to remember is in the case of Telangana, MIM is opposed to it. Can anyone guss why ?

People who have lived in Hyderabad before 80s will tell that in those periods, from the moment anyone gets down in secunderabad railway station, it was all urdu or urduised Hindi everywhere. It was as if it was still nizam's hyderabad.But from the 80s and particularly from the 90s with many people from the coastal areas settling in hyderabad and the Telugu film industry relocating to Hyderabad, urdu got slightly declined (not deminished) and was replaced by Telugu. Now most people in Hyderabad irrespective of whether they are from AP or not speak Telugu.I know couple of punjabis who settled in Hyderabad in late 80s because of the khalistani terrorism.Their children dont know a word of punjabi but are fluent in Telugu.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 16 Dec 2009 12:58

ShyamSP wrote: I don't know what is going on in JK. Why do I care in knowing truth, I'll say Indians committed injustice to Kashmir. Let's give it to Pakis.
Looks like your kind will sell Kashmir in two days.

PS: I know what Rayc did. My crib is on blindly accusing AP (???) people and not knowing the issues.

I am not too sure why the tirade against my stating that Rahul Mehta's idea is feasible.

Have you a better idea?

I sure would not like a bloodshed. I have extensively toured the Telegana region and I daresay it is developed. Compare it with the Godavari districts.

I am rather surprised to know you know what I did in Kashmir and would sell Kashmir! I think you are being unfair. I would not have gone 9 miles inside POK to raid, risking my life, if I wanted to sell Kashmir to Pakistanis or faced them and their cross border firing most of my life or engage in Op Intrusion Dalunang and the Kargil War. Indeed a better man like you should have stood post.! I find your statement most reprehensible, even though I understand your anguish as to what is happening in AP. I assure you that it also gives me deep anguish, but I find no answer. Mehta's idea was the best solution than the midnight statement of PC.

If you want to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan, then that is your choice. However, if I understand India, you are a minority and I could state what you are, but then that would lead to an unnecessary exchange. I would be surprised if a loyal Indian sell his country off to the adversary!

However, what injustice has been done to Kashmir? Seen the voting pattern? If they were to join Pakistanis, then they should have heeded the Hurriyat's call. Let us not get emotional.

I will be frank. What people in AP feel is not really affecting me, except as an Indian. But I wonder which side of the fence is right. It is for Andhra people to decide and not me.

However, Rahul Mehta's idea appeals since it allows a cooling space. If the AP govt develops Telegana and bring it to the same level as the other areas, would the Telegana people want to quit if there was a referendum?

Think it over.

I am from Bengal. There is a clamour for Gorkhaland and Kamatapur (or something like that). I would not like Bengal to become a postage stamp. Yet, as a fair person, are their demands misplaced? The bacon must be spread evenly and all will be well.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 16 Dec 2009 15:32

For me, division of AP is similar to partition of India. Then it was the division of the country based on religion, today it is division of the state based on region. We had Jinnah then, we have KCR now. My Telengana brothers are now probably as hate-filled as the (now Paki) Muslims were at the time of partition. All political parties are responsible for the current situation as they made irresponsible promises keeping only the elections in mind.

It is frightening to see how easy it is to provoke people on the lines of region, religion and caste. One can add language also to this list, but, I think division of states on linguistic lines is the most logical division.

Educated Telangana separatists seem to be convinced that the reason for their region's backwardness is "exploitation" by other Telugu people. They don't seem to take into consideration the 700 years of brutal Muslim domination, or the geography of their region, or their corrupt and inept leadership when coming up with their logic for separate Telangana. If any, the people from other regions helped Telangana significantly by investing in industries, agriculture, educational institutions, hospitals, etc. in Telangana. I am sorry to say that Telangana separatists are employing Paki logic in seeking separate Telangana. I am yet to see a condemnation of KCR's "Andhrawala bhago" slogan by Telangana leaders. Hyderabad was developed with investments and resources from the entire state, but today Telangana separatists make exclusive claim for the capital city. A number of posters on this thread (having very little understanding of AP) commented on injustice to Telangana. If there is any injustice in the current situation, it is for the rest of AP, not for Telangana.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 16 Dec 2009 16:52

Airavat wrote:Saurasthra was always a separate state from Gujarat, formed by the merger of princely states in the Kathiawar Peninsula. This state was merged into Bombay in 1956, and when Bombay State was divided by the linguistic formula in 1960, Saurashtra ended up with Gujarat.

Yes. For a while, there was a demand in Saurashtra that they want a separate State. The demand evaporated.

.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 16 Dec 2009 17:06

a_bharat wrote: 1. Educated Telangana separatists seem to be convinced that the reason for their region's backwardness is "exploitation" by other Telugu people.

2. They don't seem to take into consideration the 700 years of brutal Muslim domination, or the geography of their region, or their corrupt and inept leadership when coming up with their logic for separate Telangana.

2. 700 years of Muslim rule has NOTHING to do with today's situations. And educated as well as illiterate people do take Geography into account

1. They are partially right, though separation is wrong solution. And so contracts etc also go to people from coastal-AP. In AP (and rest of India), whole GoI and courts run on nepotism. Now HCjs in AP HC are from coastal region, and so the lawyers from coastal AP make more money than lawyers from Telangana even if both are of same caliber. Likewise, people from coastal AP dominate IAS, IPS and netadom. So Telangana people feel left out.

Solution is to use administrative system where in nepotism and favoritism doesnt happen, not separation. But upper middle class of coastal AP, which play the main decision making role in times to come, decides that laws that promote nepotism and favoritism MUST go on, Telanganites will resort to separation with more and more aggressiveness.

====

The solution I have proposed says "take referendum in Telangana (Nizam) area after 5 years with todays voter-list". Five months is enough time for coastal AP's upper middle class to fix the administration and get rid of all laws that promote nepotism and favoritsm. If they do so, AP will remain united. If they chose not, even God cant keep AP intact.

.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Dec 2009 17:29

Rahul Mehta:
Like several times in the past, you have hit some good points. I was thinking about the "blackmail by hunger" {BbH} tactic in the last few days. BbH has pros and cons:
Pros:
* Awareness among public about a particular issue is spread on account of publicity.
* It can spark further interest and goad public to participate in resolving the issue.
* Brings attention to elected officials and other authorities, forcing them to be involved in an issue.
Cons:
* A minority can potential "deform" the "democratic ways" of India's functioning. A minority could establish control over the majority or gets its way in certain issues.
* As a tactic, any leader with some following can blackmail the State and Central elected and non-elected officials.
* Sets a bad precedent.
* Can easily create rile up the "mob" because of the emotional quotient.

By force feeding an individual who threatens or is performing a hunger strike, it is quite possible to fan the spark s/he threw in the first place. In addition, this citizen's move can be engineered by the State and Central machinery to suit them and cut down in certain cases where awareness is/was necessary.

Blackmailing is harmful to the country. Period. No doubt about it. The awareness or attention component is what I like though.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 16 Dec 2009 17:36

kmkraoind wrote: Only silver lining is that MIM is damn against Telangana, because the so-called settlers have not faced the bruataility of Razakars and hence are not that staunch supporters of Hindu's cause (in other words they were moderate). While Telengana people faced the bruataility of Razakars and its preceding Islamic rule. Even Sammaka and Sarakka are the victims of islamic fundamentalism. You can hear folklores depicting the atrocities of Islamism, so Telangana people developed a psychic mentality for tit for tat attitude and they will give a harsh answer to any muslim's mischiefism. While whole India is fighting against British, people (call it Hindus) of Nizam were actively fighting against Nizam. The fight against Nizam by these fighters are unmatched or such fighting is not seen by any princely state that were ruling parts of India at that time. This thing will bipolarize people leading for the way for BJP rule in future. Even Islamists know this fact that is why MIM is aghast the idea of Telangana. If MIM opposes, then definitely it is good for India, so from this angle I support separate Telangana state.

To an extent you are right. However, effects of Coastal and Rayalaseema on the MIM types is far worse than the Telanganites from an economic angle especially post 1990. Land ownership situation in HYD and the vast surrounding area encompassing multiple districts ( mainly Rangareddy Dt.) used to be very tricky. Most of that land was barren with hills and stones and hence a lot of this land's ownership does not even have legal papers until late 90s. Whoever has the capability to make use of the land for any purposes used this land and the person holding it thought that it is his own. However, in the AP government rules until the last TDP government, the document of ownership given by Nizam was still valid. Coming to the point, these vast land areas are actually given by various generations of Nizam, Razakars and the current MIM types to their several wives and the concubines. The several children of these form a substantial poor+violent Muslim society there.

During the early 80s and 90s real estate boom in HYD, the modus operandi is like this -
1) A builder buys land from some Reddys ( they used to posess these lands with some titles and there is no gaurantee to the land titles)
2) The builder builds the house and transfers to the buyer ( some ITVty type ). The revenue department does all the good paperwork and the ITVty guy thinks he got the land.
3) The abdul was watching all the fun while the house is being built and now he claims that house using the Nizam times title given to his great-grandmother who was either a wife/concubine.

The CBN government saw certain incendents like that and then re-issued tiltes to all the land in these areas. I don't remember the detals but they passed the GO in such a way so that abduls will lose the ownership if they don't claim at a certain period before construction or something like that. There is some loophole that he created to the disadvantage of MIM abduls.

(the entire law and how it is handled is quite complex and I still don't understand it completely)

The builders used the law/loophole where possible and bumped off the abduls if they claimed it in the right fashion. After all this boom, they are secluded to only certain areas of the city which we traditionally call as Old city. In summary the land owned by the Muslims in the city came down drastically with real no room to expand. The only option is to buy and build which is not that easy too.

However, I agree that coastal APites are not visible like the Telanganites in fist fights. The real classic ones among the Telanganites are the Yadav community in the old city who insist that it is their tradition to take the Ganesh pandal thru the Mecca masjid area and do a drunken theen-maar infront of the masjid. The MIM types piss in their pants even to put up with this yadav community. of cource no one from other APites can match these Yadavs in a push-comes-to-shove fights.

Paul wrote:There are parallels between what is happening in Pakistan and what is happening here. but at a more sedate and covert fashion.

The oil droplet theory is valid here.

Poeple clamoring for development of these N KA and Vidaarbha and Teleganana by breaking them away from mother states need to realize these areas formed the erstwhile Bahmani states...Bijapaur, Golkonda, Bidar, Berar, Ahmednanagar etc.

It is one step closer to a mini Muslim state in the heartland of India. The mini droplets breaking away from their mother states will combine to form a bigger droplet....Osmanistan may yet see the light of the day.

Hari Seldon wrote: Seems a tad far-fetched to me. Political power no longer rests absolutely with a muslim elite in this area. Besides, awareness is higher regarding what sickness the bahmani states represented. Nobody, not even the MIM dares praise the razakars despite descending fromt he razakars themselves. And any razakar like activity will not be tolerated forever but is likely to be crushed like the vermin it is. Or so I hope.

Hari, I tend to agree with Paul with a different perspective. Everything is fine when the going is fine and economy is fine. Compare the behaviour of the abduls in Kashmir during VP Singh and subsequent governments after/during the fall of SU along with India's economic plight. We have seen rallies with Paki flags all over. It is a strategic blunder to have states with large Takleefized-IMs in those states. it is okay in future when they are all Indic-ized. We need build a country that can withstand the worst and should not provide a room for exploitation.

On the similar note, the worst decsion would be to create Harit pradesh that Ajit Singh is proposing. The gangetic core needs to fight far more ferociously than the Nayaks-of-Deccan against the split. Ajit Singh's definiton of Harit may be Haryali but that state is real damn Harit with 40% deobandis. It is the place where origins of Pakistan took place.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 16 Dec 2009 17:45

Rahul Mehta wrote: 2. 700 years of Muslim rule has NOTHING to do with today's situations.

But the 50 years of being a part of AP is the reason for the so called backwardness? I would say they would have been worse off if they weren't part of AP.

And so contracts etc also go to people from coastal-AP. In AP (and rest of India), whole GoI and courts run on nepotism.

We had CMs from coastal AP for only about 14 years. The cabinet has representation from all regions. If one has to go by your logic, Rayalaseema should have been most developed, but, it is least developed.

Now HCjs in AP HC are from coastal region, and so the lawyers from coastal AP make more money than lawyers from Telangana even if both are of same caliber.

Clients pay on the basis of perceived abilities (reputation) of the lawyers and not on the basis of where they come from. Perhaps you are implying that HC Justices decide their cases on the basis of the region from which the lawyers come. This is ridiculous. If you say some HC Justices are corrupt, I agree, but that is another topic.

Likewise, people from coastal AP dominate IAS, IPS and netadom. So Telangana people feel left out.

So, you want reservation for Telangana people in the Civil Services selection process?

Five months is enough time for coastal AP's upper middle class to fix the administration and get rid of all laws that promote nepotism and favoritsm

Can you point to one such law that promotes nepotism and favoritism?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Dec 2009 19:51

RM-ji,

Do not jump the gun so fast. We do not have all the required information to prepare drafts, yet.

Besides there is no real injustice done to anyone. The state has 42% elected representatives from Telangana region. It is not easy to fool that many people for 60 years.

In this scenario, not a single party is honest.

TRS and Telangana stake holders are using selective information, propaganda and blackmail to achieve their political and regional objectives.

AP State govt is non-functioning after YSR death. Rosaiah should be giving page length advertisements detailing all the statistics (revenues, budget allocation, etc). Public must be informed of facts.

Andhra politicians – They put too much trust on INC chanikyan capabilities and got bitten in their musharrafs. They should provide detailed studies and plans on how each region is backward and how they plan to alleviate it.

While I was one of the people who brought the Referendum word, it will not be that useful. For it to be purposeful, the referendum must be allowed in the entire AP region and must get the approval of 90% of Telangana public (every must vote) and at least 50% of votes in rest of AP. Let me explain the reason.

There are two parties in this issue. Telangana and rest-of-AP. Both will have +ve/-ve payoffs based on the outcome. So they should be party to any approach proposed.

While Telangana state gains, the core (that wants a union) loses. Telangana must pay some cost, if it wants a separate state at any cost. IMO, that is UT status for Hyderabad. The acceptable game is somewhere in between, as shown below:

Scale 1-9 for AP and 9-1 for Telangana:
Best Case
Best Alternative
Minimum Loss
Acceptable Loss
Cut-Costs and Leave
Best Price
Preferred Price
Minimum Price
No-Compromize

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2009 20:10

I never thought TMC had the same visions of PMK for TN.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Dec 2009 20:26

ramana wrote:DNA News Story

P Chidambaram spooked Centre into splitting Andhra Pradesh

We have some like minded deshbakths in agriculture as also in environment and the PMO.

The damage that some of these worthies have done will take us for many many years to recover from.

20% food inflation and rising and all this done singlehanded!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Dec 2009 20:48

ramana wrote:Telangana is like the Khilafat agitation. The agitators have greater pay-off from the dividers than the unifiers. So unless the dividers are at risk they will persist.

I was thinking about your comment on this w.r.t Gandhi-ji's Khilafat proposition.

Perhaps Gandhi-ji forgot to ensure that there exists negative payoffs for the otherside, if the deal breaks out.

Does Telangana Leadership, INC, PC/VM etc offered a negative payoff if the deal goes against Telugu interests? That is what 1st tier Andhra politicians must work on, while the 2nd tier keeps the "united AP" agitation going on.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 16 Dec 2009 21:25

TRS is claiming it is willing to wait till 2014 for Telengana state. Good.

In the meantime, would be nice if there be 3 capitals for AP - 4 months gubmint shall sit in Hyd, 4 months in Rayalseema (say Kurnool) and then 4 months in Vijaywada. Let all enjoy closeness to seat of gubmint and all.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 16 Dec 2009 22:03

To clarify the process for formation of state further

1. The President (through the Union Cabinet, which in turn is represented by the Home Minister for such a matter) makes a reference to the Legislative Assembly of the concerned state asking for its opinion on the matter of bifurcation of the state

2. The only mechanism for the Assembly to express its opinion is through a resolution.

3. After receiving the resolution (or at the expiry of the specified time period, which is in the Schedules) the President conveys the Assembly's resolution to Parliament.

4. Parliament, through an Act, can vote whatever it wants - it can bifurcate the state if it wants.

In principle, Parliament is free to enact what it wants, even if it is diametrically opposite to the resolution of the concerned State Assembly. However, in practice, it is not so simple. If it does not seem to take into account the views of the State Assembly, it will face significant legal challenges. Since there is no case law on this issue, it has yet to be legally tested. However, the State could potentially argue that the spirit of Article 3 requires concurrence by the State Assembly. The very inclusion of a Presidential reference to the State Assembly in the Article, along with the intention of the Constitution makers as indicated by the Constituent Assembly Debates on the issue could be used to support the contention that the concurrence of the Assembly is necessary and not just desirable for Parliament to enact a law on the topic.

Of course, Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution itself to make its rights more explicit, but that in turn will be subject to a challenge on the basis of violation of the principle of federalism, one of the Basic Features of the Constitution not subject to amendment.

Overall, I doubt that any Parliament would be willing to enact a law to bifurcate the state unless the affected state was behind such an outcome, as expressed through a resolution of the Legislative Assembly. Given the opposition to Telengana by legislators of the AP assembly, I don't see this happening anytime soon. Hence, this is all a needless storm as of now.

Lastly, moving beyond the specifics of the Telengana issue, what I find to be a concern is the perception that has been created that a fast unto death can force the Government to take any action. The popularity of the demand for Telengana is in doubt because of the electoral (non) performance of the TRS in elections concluded only a few months ago. While that was no referendum on Telengana, it is questionable to accept the demands of the leader of a party that did not enjoy majority support in the most recent elections. Perhaps there is such support for the issue despite the electoral loss of the TRS - my point is only that it has not been established. One mechanism to establish such support would be a referendum, but our Constitution has no provision for it. We need to enact a provision for referenda on important issues such as this. Otherwise, we will always be hostages to political parties and their political games.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 16 Dec 2009 22:08

BTW, what is the basis for all the angst against Chidambaram ? Other than the fact that he announced a decision taken by the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Chief Minister of AP, what is his fault? Or that of Veerappa Moily? These are not rhetorical questions - I genuinely want to understand the grievances against them but have not been able to find them clearly enunciated in the media.