Bharat Rakshak

Anuj, If you want to continue on the forum take back the word "idiot" if not you can say your byes.

RamaY wrote:I support a separate Telangana if it helps the people living there.

Same here brother. You should read this http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opi ... 357845.cms

RamaY wrote:
I don't know. What do you think the world would do?

And do you think India should care about the world when it is losing JK for separatism?

You attempts at obfuscating the issue by comparing JK with Telangana will not work. They are not one and the same period.

An exact analogy would be seperation of Andhra from Madras, no why dont you answer me my question

How would you have felt if there were refurndum in TamilNadu on seperation of Andhra in 1953?

anuj wrote:

RamaY wrote:Are you serious

Damn serious. You want me to consider a bunch of figures that were prepared and put together by the same people who are opposing the formation of telangana today.

Do you think Mr. A who practice's discrimination in fund allocation, developmental works etc etc and actually write a f%^king report about it? Are YOU serious?

It is upto you Anuj. You believed that Mr. A and Mr. B logic right? Even without any logic one can demand separation, and it will be perfectly alright to do so.

I haven't been to remote telangana regions, so I cannot comment on that. But what I want to know is on what basis you think Telangana is exploited, and that too by rest of the state.

Many years ago when I was driving to Mahaboob Nagar, I noticed streches of Mango archids followed by empty fields. I don't know the reasons but my CT mind couldn't comprehend how one can achieve raise those archids when his neighbor left his tens of acres of land barren. Perhaps there is a real reason.

I will tell you another story from my family: My uncles sold their ancestral land in WG Dist, and bought 4 times larger barren land in Bellari dist, Karnataka in early 1980. In those days they didn't have any irrigation facilities in that area. I remember my foreign returned Engineer uncle personally work on those fields with a tracter and tiller. Today, after 30 years, he owns substantial property there. Did he exploit Bellari locals? I do not know. I know thousands of families who migrated to Bellari dist with literally nothing and after working hard for more than one generation are wealthy today. Can we accuse them of exploting locals? I do not know.

My compromise formula:

Split the state into Telangana and Andhra. Let Hyderabad be a UT for 25 years before being transferred to Telangana.

Hyderabad currently generates revenues of Rs 15,000 crores a year. Divide this -- one third to Telangana and one third to Andhra for 25 years to develop their respective capitals. One third retained by central government for administration expenses.

Announce that the new capitals of Telangana and Andhra will be connected to Hyderabad with 6-lane expressways within two years.

This way, Telangana guys will be cool -- they will eventually get Hyderabad after 25 years. Andhra guys will be cool -- they will not immediately lose out on all the investments and hardwork done by them in Hyderabad over the years. MOrever, each will get one-third of Hyderabad revenues, so there is no heart burn. Quarter of a century is enough time for them to develop their capitals to Hyderabad standards.

As a bonus, two new cities in the area will get to develop hugely as respective state capitals, benefitting the region's economy.

Builders lobby and other businessmen from coastal Andhra will be cool with Hyderabad being declared UT -- their investments in various projects will not go to ruin. Their value will actually shoot up.

There will be no harrasment of migrants to Andhra by "Telanagana Navnirman Sena" because the city will be directly administred from Delhi.

Win, win all round. This is the only acceptable solution I can think of. It is important for tempers to cool down. Delaying Hyderabad's transfer to Telangana will help in this. Handing it immediately over to Telangana will be a disaster.

I discussed this solution with people in Hyderabad. They were very impressed with this. People in their 50s and above were happy that the transfer will happen when they are long gone and for the time being, their life will continue as usual.

RamaY wrote:Imagine a Telangana state where ~40% people are opposed to it.

That's what the whole UNITED ANDHRA campaign is about now isn't it?
What would the poorer sections of telangana know about discrimination. What do they know about andhra on how it disregarded it?

The political babu's know that very well and hence try to strike an emotional cord. It's like a businessmen trying to deal with a common man.

Venkarl wrote: fighting with our own people will only make the dream of some Chinese come true....so lets calm down and do piece by piece analysis...

And all the crores worth destruction caused in last 20 days will hit hard on AP people stomach. AP would have gone 5-10 years back and no one knows when this mayhem will end.

goutham wrote:

RamaY wrote:
I don't know. What do you think the world would do?

And do you think India should care about the world when it is losing JK for separatism?

You attempts at obfuscating the issue by comparing JK with Telangana will not work. They are not one and the same period.

An exact analogy would be seperation of Andhra from Madras, no why dont you answer me my question

How would you have felt if there were refurndum in TamilNadu on seperation of Andhra in 1953?

I wasn't even born when AP state was formed. If I were there, I would have demanded district by district referendum so we wouldn't have the heart burn of Madras and Tirupati even after 60 years...

goutham wrote:
You attempts at obfuscating the issue by comparing JK with Telangana will not work. They are not one and the same period.

An exact analogy would be seperation of Andhra from Madras, no why dont you answer me my question

How would you have felt if there were refurndum in TamilNadu on seperation of Andhra in 1953?

Your logic has been excellent. I am from Andhra, and now I want to start a Business in Hyderabad, do you think it is right time for me to start my business in Hyderabad or Should I go back to Andhra?

If I really start my business in Hyderabad without taking your opinion, will you let me do business as any other person from Telangana, Punjab, Gujarat, Maharashtra, or you will treat me as "Andhrite" who has snatched all the opportunities from you "Telanganites"??

Venkarl wrote:Princely States??? So what???

I don't think the rulers of those princely states who came together thought "so what?". They came together because they were one and the same people distinguished on linguistic lines. The linguistic basis was chosen not because of "so what" but because it did matter else our states would look like the one's in USA - squares and rectangles.

ShyamSP wrote:

goutham wrote: Why should Andhra people have a say in formation in Telangana, Utterly ridiculous . What stake to Andhrites have in Telangana?

The question of Hyderabad can cetainly be discussed and options explored for a resolution

Why does it need 90% support in Telenagana, Does any referendum in the world so far ever require this?

That is because Telengana joined rest of AP by passing resolution in then Hyderabad state. Now when you want to break up other party needs to agree.

You had your choice not to join Andhra state in 50s. You had choice to split during Jai Andhra (i.e Kosta wanted seperate state) in early 70s.

There has to be peaceful settlement with everyone agreeing to it. Do you think by creating violence, attacking properties/businesses/people, you'll achieve Telengana.

If GOI wants to create one, they will have to pay compensation for other areas. Imagine opportunity cost they have to pay for loss of Kurnool as capitol city.
Rayalseema people are already asking for $500 billion as package for the region in case split. They will also have to make sure they get water rights correctly to avoid water fights in the future.

I'm not even getting into what those Kosta people my ask. If GOI has to pay they go bankrupt and do you think other states agree to draining that much money.

Telengana can have their own state but they have to pay for it. As a bonus, you would also get volatile KCR as you CM after all he is okay to not to have high-tech city and rule like Nizam with Charminar, Falaknama, Salarjung musuems (his wish not mine)

Two parties need not agree for seperation, Same is the case for divorce.

The consitituion of India doesnt require approval of the assembly or a resolution passed for the formation of a state. If that were the case Andhra would never have seperated from TN

Telanagana agreed to be part of AP based on certain conditions in an gentleman's agreement which have been repeatedly violated by successive Andhra leaders.

RamaY wrote:What is your stand on Kashmir vally separatism? Should India have a say?

Kashmir should be discussed in the kashmir thread. Not here. The thought that kashmir creeps into your mind when you hear about telangana is total give away. Do not do that.

anuj wrote:

RamaY wrote:Imagine a Telangana state where ~40% people are opposed to it.

That's what the whole UNITED ANDHRA campaign is about now isn't it?
What would the poorer sections of telangana know about discrimination. What do they know about andhra on how it disregarded it?

The political babu's know that very well and hence try to strike an emotional cord. It's like a businessmen trying to deal with a common man.

Now this is gubar-logic my friend.

On one hand, you do not believe in Govt statistics.

On the other hand you do not believe Telangana commons to have the knowledge and wisdom to see and decide-against AP exploitation.

Only you and the person who cameup with Mr. A and Mr. B logic knows about AP exploitation.

Don't you think you are demanding a separate state because few thosand people "Believe" that AP public is exploiting Telangana resources?

Venkarl wrote: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... hY0E&hl=en

I am not good at consolidating data...may be gurus can help us here.

Venkari, Have put all data from that pdf into csv file from which you can import into googledocs. I don't have permission todo that. File->import and use this file.

http://sites.google.com/site/ryamyam/ap ... opment.csv

RamaY wrote:But they are cancelling the Bandh as a consolation to our Christian brothers.

That is not a concern for me to worry about. The only reason i support this cause is because i firmly believe smaller states are easier to manage and develop. I see two telugu states as even more powerful than one. I would like to see the entire telugu lands developed and standard of living maintained as much as it is possible. As early as possible. That is my priority concern. Unity is irrelevant. Two prosperous telugu states will leave poverty behind and thus can forget there differences and form a confederation to take on the rest. I don't see as a separation. I see this as a necessary step to move forward and collaborate on a grander plan in the future.

anuj wrote:

RamaY wrote:Are you serious

Damn serious. You want me to consider a bunch of figures that were prepared and put together by the same people who are opposing the formation of telangana today.

Do you think Mr. A who practice's discrimination in fund allocation, developmental works etc etc would sit down and actually write a f%^king report about it? Are YOU serious?

No the census was prepared in 2001. Your god KCR broke away from TDP, joined with YSR and created all this ruckus in 2004. So your point is wrong.

ramana wrote:Anuj, If you want to continue on the forum take back the word "idiot" if not you can say your byes.

I take it back but you can ask the other guy to take back the word "ignorant". That would settle it. Idiot is not a derogatory term BTW.

TKiran wrote:

goutham wrote:
You attempts at obfuscating the issue by comparing JK with Telangana will not work. They are not one and the same period.

An exact analogy would be seperation of Andhra from Madras, no why dont you answer me my question

How would you have felt if there were refurndum in TamilNadu on seperation of Andhra in 1953?

Your logic has been excellent. I am from Andhra, and now I want to start a Business in Hyderabad, do you think it is right time for me to start my business in Hyderabad or Should I go back to Andhra?

If I really start my business in Hyderabad without taking your opinion, will you let me do business as any other person from Telangana, Punjab, Gujarat, Maharashtra, or you will treat me as "Andhrite" who has snatched all the opportunities from you "Telanganites"??

No one is asking any one not to do business. You will be welcome to do your own business, live anywhere in Telangana. You have these rights conferred upon you as a citizen of India. No one can stop you from doing that.

There are several Gujrati's, Marvadis, Tamilians,Kannadigas living peacefully in Hyderabad and the fact that Hyderabad is so vibrant today is a Testamant to the people of Telanagana and their culture

RamaY wrote:
I wasn't even born when AP state was formed. If I were there, I would have demanded district by district referendum so we wouldn't have the heart burn of Madras and Tirupati even after 60 years...

So do I take it that you would have wanted 90% of the people in Andhra support the resolution and more then 50% of the People in TN wanted the seperation?

Am I right?

RamaY wrote:I haven't been to remote telangana regions, so I cannot comment on that. But what I want to know is on what basis you think Telangana is exploited, and that too by rest of the state.

Buddy, analyzing whether telangana was being exploited is not my job. Im sure it's not your job as well. And i cannot comment of the region based on the few places i visited. That bit and piece information would a flaw. I, like everyone read a fu#katon of information on the web, on the forums, enadu, sakshi and several other places and based on that try to formulate an opinion.

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
This way, Telangana guys will be cool -- they will eventually get Hyderabad after 25 years. Andhra guys will be cool -- they will not immediately lose out on all the investments and hardwork done by them in Hyderabad over the years. MOrever, each will get one-third of Hyderabad revenues, so there is no heart burn. Quarter of a century is enough time for them to develop their capitals to Hyderabad standards.
.

You don't even know what KCR would do if he sees this. He'll find your ip address, come to your house, smash everything in your house for suggesting sharing Hyd with rest of andhra. How dare you take away heart-beat/life-line of Telangana?

All he want is take Telangana with Hyd and let Seema/Costa go begging. No compromise.

goutham wrote:

ShyamSP wrote:[quote="goutham"
Why should Andhra people have a say in formation in Telangana, Utterly ridiculous . What stake to Andhrites have in Telangana?

The question of Hyderabad can cetainly be discussed and options explored for a resolution

Why does it need 90% support in Telenagana, Does any referendum in the world so far ever require this? /quote]


That is because Telengana joined rest of AP by passing resolution in then Hyderabad state. Now when you want to break up other party needs to agree.

You had your choice not to join Andhra state in 50s. You had choice to split during Jai Andhra (i.e Kosta wanted seperate state) in early 70s.

There has to be peaceful settlement with everyone agreeing to it. Do you think by creating violence, attacking properties/businesses/people, you'll achieve Telengana.

If GOI wants to create one, they will have to pay compensation for other areas. Imagine opportunity cost they have to pay for loss of Kurnool as capitol city.
Rayalseema people are already asking for $500 billion as package for the region in case split. They will also have to make sure they get water rights correctly to avoid water fights in the future.

I'm not even getting into what those Kosta people my ask. If GOI has to pay they go bankrupt and do you think other states agree to draining that much money.

Telengana can have their own state but they have to pay for it. As a bonus, you would also get volatile KCR as you CM after all he is okay to not to have high-tech city and rule like Nizam with Charminar, Falaknama, Salarjung musuems (his wish not mine)

Two parties need not agree for seperation, Same is the case for divorce.

The consitituion of India doesnt require approval of the assembly or a resolution passed for the formation of a state. If that were the case Andhra would never have seperated from TN

Telanagana agreed to be part of AP based on certain conditions in an gentleman's agreement which have been repeatedly violated by successive Andhra leaders.

Without SRC this is not done. Also divorce settlement, even if you go by that terminology, both parties need to agree. In this case aggreived parties are Rayalaseema and Kosta (if you go by region and ignoring other parties within them) need to agree to the compensation.

And you think Tamils overwhelm others in voting?

1970s settlements trumps 1950s. You blew your choice to give separate state to Kosta and lost chance to have separate state. You or somebody here said Neelam Sanjeev Reddy violated Gentlemen agreement which was before 1970s.

anuj wrote:...As early as possible. That is my priority concern. Unity is irrelevant. Two prosperous telugu states will leave poverty behind and thus can forget there differences and form a confederation to take on the rest. I don't see as a separation. I see this as a necessary step to move forward and collaborate on a grander plan in the future.

Anujji if you dont mind my asking what do you mean when you say "Two prosperous telugu states will ...form a confederation to take on the rest". Do you mean the rest of India or something else? Why this animosity against your fellow citizens? I am curious to know if you and other Telengana proponents have some percieved misgivings against your country and its other citizens.

RamaY wrote:On the other hand you do not believe Telangana commons to have the knowledge and wisdom to see and decide-against AP exploitation.

I know perfectly well what psychological operation is. And i reckon that is what happened in telangana. That is why it took 60 years to reach where we are today. They applied a bit of balm whenever necessary. With precision they fed these stocks.

goutham wrote: Two parties need not agree for seperation, Same is the case for divorce.

The consitituion of India doesnt require approval of the assembly or a resolution passed for the formation of a state. If that were the case Andhra would never have seperated from TN

1) Are you living under a rock or Antarctica? Consensus is required for divorce. If not, one party has to prove that he/she is being abuse by the spouse for non-consensual divorce. Read up divorce laws.

2) Creating new states is a gray area which wasn't tested in any courts ever. It was done at the whim of Central leadership 50 years back. It can't be done without state agreement and won't stand a Court trail that way.

ravit wrote:No the census was prepared in 2001. Your god KCR broke away from TDP, joined with YSR and created all this ruckus in 2004. So your point is wrong.

Yes. You unanimously and irrefutably proved me wrong. Yes.

anuj wrote:

Venkarl wrote:Princely States??? So what???/quote]
I don't think the rulers of those princely states who came together thought "so what?".
{Sorry..I didn't get you here}
They came together because they were one and the same people distinguished on linguistic lines. The linguistic basis was chosen not because of "so what" but because it did matter else our states would look like the one's in USA - squares and rectangles.

Exactly...Andhra Pradesh was formed because people who belonged to it spoke Telugu. Look brother, put down all your facts and figures how Telangana is backward than Rayalaseema. Andhra got lucky falling between Godavari and Krishna....and Krishna is a river which flows violently cutting through all the way from Maharashtra-Karnataka-KG Basin.....resulting soil erosion which led to carrying the fertility to that region..this is the major reason why that land is so fertile apart from krishna and godavari waters being channeled there......Telangana went drought because of many borewells and pumps during for paddy fields to get subsidies in the late last decade..due to which you will not find water even if you drill 600ft...

anuj wrote:

RamaY wrote:I haven't been to remote telangana regions, so I cannot comment on that. But what I want to know is on what basis you think Telangana is exploited, and that too by rest of the state.

Buddy, analyzing whether telangana was being exploited is not my job. Im sure it's not your job as well. And i cannot comment of the region based on the few places i visited. That bit and piece information would a flaw. I, like everyone read a fu#katon of information on the web, on the forums, enadu, sakshi and several other places and based on that try to formulate an opinion.

Then why were you shouting from roof-top that Telangana is being exploited, 2-pages back, and that you need separate state? If you don't analyze that statement or believe that?

BijuShet wrote:Anujji if you dont mind my asking what do you mean when you say "Two prosperous telugu states will ...form a confederation to take on the rest". Do you mean the rest of India or something else? Why this animosity against your fellow citizens? I am curious to know if you and other Telengana proponents have some percieved misgivings against your country and its other citizens.

Arre mere bhai mujje maaf kar na. Im not a part of any grand conspiracy. I meant small states have difficulty influencing national politics. A telugu confederacy would allow it to play an influential part.

ravit wrote: 1) Are you living under a rock or Antarctica? Consensus is required for divorce. If not, one party has to prove that he/she is being abuse by the spouse for non-consensual divorce. Read up divorce laws.

2) Creating new states is a gray area which wasn't tested in any courts ever. It was done at the whim of Central leadership 50 years back. It can't be done without state agreement and won't stand a Court trail that way.

Courts are only going to interpret constitution not change it. If you want to change the rules on formation of state Constitution needs to be amended

Telengana has been abused in this relationship and that is the ground for this divorce, It doesnt need to be consensual in this case.

ravit wrote:1) Are you living under a rock or Antarctica? Consensus is required for divorce. If not, one party has to prove that he/she is being abuse by the spouse for non-consensual divorce. Read up divorce laws.

Im sure that would apply to a "shot-gun" marriage but in no way do i think it is fair.

ravit wrote:2) Creating new states is a gray area which wasn't tested in any courts ever. It was done at the whim of Central leadership 50 years back. It can't be done without state agreement and won't stand a Court trail that way.

States used to form on linguistic lines in the past. These days there formed based on economics. Jharkand is an example.

anuj wrote:I meant small states have difficulty influencing national politics. A telugu confederacy would allow it to play an influential part.

Yeah. One state of 42 MP's can't influence national politics. But, confederation of 2 state with half of the MP's, who are fighting and abuses each other right now, will influence. I agree unanimously, consentaneously and consentiently.

anuj wrote:

BijuShet wrote:Anujji if you dont mind my asking what do you mean when you say "Two prosperous telugu states will ...form a confederation to take on the rest". Do you mean the rest of India or something else? Why this animosity against your fellow citizens? I am curious to know if you and other Telengana proponents have some percieved misgivings against your country and its other citizens.

Arre mere bhai mujje maaf kar na. Im not a part of any grand conspiracy. I meant small states have difficulty influencing national politics. A telugu confederacy would allow it to play an influential part.

conphused...we have a telugu 'confedracy' i.e. the state of Andhra pradesh. We must now break it. And then re-form a confederacy?

ravit wrote:Then why were you shouting from roof-top that Telangana is being exploited

It's based on the fu@katon of things i've read over the years. Do i need to be come kind of a statistics officer to write or put my weight behind something. Is that your criteria?

ravit wrote:If you don't analyze that statement or believe that?

Buddy, i don't hit a paki web portal and come up with this sh!t. I read, cite references and based on that take a stand.

viv wrote:conphused...we have a telugu 'confedracy' i.e. the state of Andhra pradesh. We must now break it. And then re-form a confederacy?

Give the power to locals. What is wrong with that?

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:More nonsense... Get a grip man!

I replied that UNITED ANDHRA is a cliche argument among the telanganite's and you counter that argument with More nonsense... Get a grip man!. Do you even have a point to argue about?

anuj wrote:Yes, that line has become a cliche and only used to keep telangana in andhra's grips. A cheap line to gather pity.

This is your line. pure BS. Spew garbage from your mouth.. use some big words such as keeping in your grip, exploitation, systematic deprivation, condescending... The rantings are going endless ...

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:Huh? The only thing I can say is Oranges are good for you and your BP.

I know. You do not have a counter argument for the various claims made by telangana other than labeling them racist, selfish, discriminatory and several other adjectives in the book. But seriously, what is there to say? I systematically deprived telangana for 60 years!! So what? We speak the same language!! We should stay together!! Telangana is selfish!! They want to divide india!! They are pakis!! Samaikya andhra!!

You are characterless, worthless liar. Show in any of my post the crap you spew up there.
OMG! I am condescending now! An Andhra called you out on your lies.

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:I know one thing. If people like you take over Telangana, fundamental rights will be at stake.

That's it baby. let it out. Condescend me. There are people from other states on this forum but there's no need to pretend. Be yourself.

Oh no! Your feelings are hurt.. little Nazi boy! sorry...

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:More BS... It never stops coming from your mouth and key board.

Nonsense. BS. Oranges are good. That's all you can say? This is the intellectual discussion that goes on in BRF? That's how you counter claims? That's how you spend your 130 post counts on?

This is your BS:

anuj wrote:Mr. A likes apples but hates and refuses to eat oranges. Mr. B and Mr. C do not like the fact that Mr. A doesn't eat oranges. So Mr. B and Mr. C pick up a gun and put it to there own head and threaten Mr. D, Mr. E, Mr. F and others, that if Mr. A doesn't start eating oranges, they will pull the trigger.

You know what happens next?
Mr. D,E,F and others form a band and force feed Mr. A with oranges. That is what SAMIAKYA ANDHRA is to telangana.
What rights do Mr. B and C have on Mr. A anyway? That's not a desire. That's an obsession to make Mr. A do what you want him to do - Desires of Mr. A not withstanding.

What rights do Mr. B and C have on Mr. A anyway? That's not a desire. That's an obsession to make Mr. A do what you want him to do - Desires of Mr. A not withstanding.

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:India is not your property. India is for Indians. You don't own Telangana or Hyderabad. I don't own Andhra or Hyderabad or Mubai. Thackrey and his goons don't own Mumbai. Every place in India is every ones. We have MLAs/MPs/ZP/Mandals to manage our affairs.

Your an idiot. Get this straight buddy. India was formed from several princely states. They joined several regions and carved out states. Karnataka belongs to kannada people. Maharashtra belongs to marathi people. Tamil nadu belongs to tamil people. It is unwritten rule but that rule is still there. It is people like you who when cornered, blunt out the infamous line INDIA BELONGS TO INDIANS and piss off people. In an effort to score your personal goals you use that line and you jeopardize your entire ethnicity future relationship with other states. Those who don't have respect for other people borders deserve no respect.

Now you are an expert on law and unwritten rules. Yesterday you were an expert on History. Then you became an expert on exploitation. Day before yesterday you were an expert on Andhra and their condescending culture. I can't wait for tomorrow to see what expertise your great mind will pick up!


I am sorry to hear that "India for Indians" pissed you off. You seem to be a great intellectual. Can you list out all slogans and lines which you don't consider condescending or piss you off? All BRites will strive to use only those lines and slogans.

Since you seem to be now an expert on ethnicity too, please clarify the ethnicity of my kids belong. They have an Andhra dad and Telangana mom.

Do you dream of ethnic cleansing once you get your pure land?


Your listed stopped after Kannada, Tamil and Marathi people. Wondering about Telugu people? What do you think?

Do you know if any Indian can buy any flat, house, land any where in any of these states and can get a job in any of these states? I am not trying to be condescending... Since you are an expert in every thing, I am trying to clarify my doubts.

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:The only sh1theads who are barging into others' properties and breaking things are Telangana activists and goons.

Ok. Im not going anywhere. If you ACTUALLY have something to say they lay it out for me. Im tired of you using these foolish adjectives to gain pity and manufacture whatever consent you want to.

You are the one playing victim game and name game looking for pity: exploiters, under the grip, condescending, oppressed...

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:I have one suggestion for you. You need help.

1) Shut up
2) Learn how to discuss and argue
3) Come back here and ping me when your done

Your just a rookie. You've never engaged in an argument EVER.

Want some Valium?

You mean I never engaged in an argument that is hate mongering and abusive. Yep!

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:I definitely understand. When you go to someone's house burn it down and kill them, it is all their fault.

Get lost drama queen

Your own words: It is all their fault that we attacked them.

anuj wrote:No one wants it to get dirty. But who was responsible for it to come to this stage? Who refused to let it go? Who cried foul when the relationship ended? Who went to the parents? Who went to the police and bribed them? Who force fed Mr. A without his consent?

Drama and lies seem to be your forte.

anuj wrote:

vijayk wrote:Which College did you go? Nazi College of Arts and Culture?

I feel like im arguing with forrest gump.

You argue with retarded people too! That's one way for you to win arguments. Or do you lose there too?

anuj wrote:

BijuShet wrote:Anujji if you dont mind my asking what do you mean when you say "Two prosperous telugu states will ...form a confederation to take on the rest". Do you mean the rest of India or something else? Why this animosity against your fellow citizens? I am curious to know if you and other Telengana proponents have some percieved misgivings against your country and its other citizens.

Arre mere bhai mujje maaf kar na. Im not a part of any grand conspiracy. I meant small states have difficulty influencing national politics. A telugu confederacy would allow it to play an influential part.

If I understand you correctly you are asking for smaller states so as to provide better governance and better distribution of resources to the people. In your opinion Did the smaller kingdoms help or hurt us when East India Company(an external entity) ventured into India? Do you believe that the current political leaders who are pushing for Telengana actually care about the people of that region or are more motivated by the resources that will come under their control once this objective is achieved?

ravit wrote:But, confederation of 2 state with half of the MP's, who are fighting and abuses each other right now, will influence. I agree unanimously, consentaneously and consentiently.

Why make it hard? Why let go with a grudge? Why not part ways like brothers? Who's the one here acting like a ex-boyfriend refusing to believe "it's over"?

anuj wrote: States used to form on linguistic lines in the past. These days there formed based on economics. Jharkand is an example.

And Telangana is not economically different from rest of AP. One exception is that they have one and only freedrom fighter in the history of universe: KCR. And ROAP(restof AP) does not.

This whole prove it is exploited angle is interesting

Does Telangana need to feel exploited to opt out???