Bharat Rakshak

RaviBg wrote:ShyamSP, why are you bringing bellary into picture again and again? Please edit your posts. Let us not go OT again. Keep it limited to Andhra where the entire issue is. People of Bellary haven't asked for anything and have no bone in this battle. Telanagana wants to be a separate state and Rayalseema and Coastal andhra are opposing it. Bellary isn't even part of the issue and hasn't sided with anyone. Why do you insist on raising that issue everytime?

RaviBg,

Bellary and Ananthapur districts were part of same area/district called Datta Mandalam. So it is not OT.

If pre-independant Nizam (historical) area has to be given identity for new state, others can bring other areas that are historically part of Andhra/Telugu areas. There are other reasons as to why I brought up but I'll write them up when related context comes.

Then please bring in all old areas including madras. This is turning out to be like the chinese claims saying anything part of old empire should be part of new china.

If people of Bellary don't even want to be part of rayalseema or andhra, why are you raising that issue? Just like you don't want AP to be broken up, I too don't want Karnataka to be split and regions given to other states. If required, I am ok with N Karnataka being a separate state, given the lack of development there.

If TN wants Bangalore and mysore, and Maharashtra Belgaum etc and Andhra wants Bellary and Raichur, there will be no state called karnataka at all.

RaviBg wrote:Then please bring in all old areas including madras. This is turning out to be like the chinese claims saying anything part of old empire should be part of new china.

If people of Bellary don't even want to be part of rayalseema or andhra, why are you raising that issue? Just like you don't want AP to be broken up, I too don't want Karnataka to be split and regions given to other states. If required, I am ok with N Karnataka being a separate state, given the lack of development there.

If TN wants Bangalore and mysore, and Maharashtra Belgaum etc and Andhra wants Bellary and Raichur, there will be no state called karnataka at all.

Good, BJP should realize that point instead of playing stupid games in Andhra.

RaviBg wrote:Then please bring in all old areas including madras.

This will also come into consideration depending on DMK stand. People still remember that Potti Sriramulu died for Andhra state with Madras as capitol

The hand which giveth can take it too

1954-56 showed that events in one state effect all its neighboring states

ShyamSP wrote:Good, BJP should realize that point instead of playing stupid games in Andhra.

Well, BJP is not Karnataka and Karnataka is not BJP. And any person will know that each state unit has their own agenda, not just BJP. Even during the cauvery issue, the congress in both TN and KN supported their own states. I don't know why you are bringing unrelated issues. BJP in AP realized that in Telangana they can get more votes if they support it now. Why should that be related to KN at all?

I wouldn't be wrong in saying that the AP issue showed the ugly face of many so called nationalists. I am seeing shades of the same paki and chini logic in this thread and the telangana thread lately.

RaviBg wrote:

ShyamSP wrote:Good, BJP should realize that point instead of playing stupid games in Andhra.

Well, BJP is not Karnataka and Karnataka is not BJP. And any person will know that each state unit has their own agenda, not just BJP. Even during the cauvery issue, the congress in both TN and KN supported their own states. I don't know why you are bringing unrelated issues. BJP in AP realized that in Telangana they can get more votes if they support it now. Why should that be related to KN at all?

I wouldn't be wrong in saying that the AP issue showed the ugly face of many so called nationalists. I am seeing shades of the same paki and chini logic in this thread and the telangana thread lately.

Whole Telengana issue is depend on paki and chini logic. Telenagana sentiment is like Paki sentiment.

Each group wants to play their own ugly political game in AP. Rayalaseema and Coastal people play their own game.

If splitting AP is the game, let's split all other states is another game. Result would be status-quo.

All issues are inter connected and are not Karnataka-specific.

If Telenagana forms, water will be problem for Rayalaseema. Rayalaseema will have to cut water to Chennai. See how Chennai gets affected with no fault of theirs in original issue.

ShyamSP wrote: Whole Telengana issue is depend on paki and chini logic. Telenagana sentiment is like Paki sentiment.

Each group wants to play their own ugly political game in AP. Rayalaseema and Coastal people play their own game.

If splitting AP is the game, let's split all other states is another game. Result would be status-quo.

All issues are inter connected and are not Karnataka-specific.

If Telenagana forms, water will be problem for Rayalaseema. Rayalaseema will have to cut water to Chennai. See how Chennai gets affected with no fault of theirs in original issue.

Take a step back and read your own post. So your main argument for not allowing telangana is because you want the water from there?? The same logic that pakis use for claiming kashmir, saying they want to control the water head! And you are saying the telangana demand is due to paki logic?? Looks like united AP demand by some people here is like paki demand!

You want to split all states because people in your state who felt they are being discriminated against wanted a separate state? That is like saying, my brother wants to move out of joint family in my house, so I want to split up all other joint families?? sounds pretty cheap, doesn't it?

Water rights to chennai? let us cross the bridge when we come to it. The center would probably set up a river tribunal to split water between the states.

I have zero interest in Telangana issue. For the so called telugu unity, I have seen some pretty bad name calling of people from different regions of AP. When the so called nationalistic people who claim to see issues from Indian interest PoV debate in the gutters, why blame the opportunistic politicians and the illiterate masses?

Ravibg,

Take it easy. Paki logic is used to counter paki logic.

They are dividing Telengana one some Telenagana sentiment according to Telengana leaders. Other side thinks they are dividing by creating hatred. Do you want states to be created by creating hatred among people or doing amicable agreement between people.

As for me if they want to create new states, they have to form SRC and come procedures and laws as to how to create new states that is peaceful and agreeable to all and for the nation's advantage and sell that advantage to people. This I said before also.

Well said RaviBg.

Telangana is about the region which consists of 10 districts and united AP (at least as it turned out for the most part of last half century) is about resource grab and lately the ego issue of Hyderabad.

The primary reason for Hyd's growth is more of a central government than of local government. The foundations for public sectors, pre-ind institutions/central institutions, people's bent for education/technology (as in case with all southern states) have relatively less to do with local govts.

I am not denying the role played by some in growing Hyd , the capital of AP and thus focus of modernization projects. It has also come up with massive influx into Hyd from other parts of AP (that is itself is not bad per se).

Having said that I still would like to see how other political parties are developing the counter strategy in promising a peaceful transition, sustaining overall growth of the region in the long term while strengthening democratic institutions (or at least not messing with it).

Personally, like I said earlier, Since mid/late 90s I thought we had reached a point of no return in the finality of the state’s boundaries but now open to the idea of why waste a crisis? How can we *all* benefit from this?.

ShyamSP, I have said before too. The entire Telangaga issue was raised by telangana people only, and they have been raising it for last 30-40 years. It is for people of AP to decide how they want to proceed. Don't bring issue of Bellary, raichur or any other states into telangana issue.

Your strategy seems to be to create more disputes/issues so that your state is not split in the mayhem. That is not good for the country in the long term. Why create issues when people in Bellary etc arent part of the problem at all? Today you are raising this issue, tomorrow if other rayalseema politicians raise the same issue, it will cause people in Karnataka to raise the pitch. It will create bad blood between AP and KN, when these states have very cordial relationship at present.

The politicians have done enough to create divisive issues. I am surprised people who have read so much about the "divide and rule" policy of the british try to employ the same tactic within the country. Raise other fires, so that the original fire will be forgotten! Truly pathetic.

I responded such when similar such insinuations were made in regard to Maharashtra/Marathwada. There will really be no impact to other states.
As of now, the scope of Telangana/United AP is totally limited to AP boundaries. Thankfully, besides scare tactic there is no movement on the ground of the scope creep and is difficult to engineer in such short time frame.

Satya_anveshi wrote:Personally, like I said earlier, Since mid/late 90s I thought we had reached a point of no return in the finality of the state’s boundaries but now open to the idea of why waste a crisis? How can we *all* benefit from this?.

I am very open to this idea. If the center can come up with a 2nd SRC and dicuss all open statehood demand issues( telangana, darjeeling, harit pradesh, bundelkhand etc), it is good. If the people of that region are vehemently demanding a separate state ( like telangana and darjeeling), the center should consider that demand with an open mind as it is not good to let an issue fester for long.

However, where I disagree is trying to break up states where there is no such demand( like bellary in current context) or very weak demand ( like vidharba, kutch, South TN etc) or provoking people there or creating artificial issues. What some people here and in AP are doing is to deflect the issue in AP by creating/provoking other issues. That is what I oppose!

Naidu *if* he is a true/real leader has to really bite the United AP way, *believe* in it, and articulate his stand with everything he has got (he has good media backup, has past achievement to his credit/showcase, intellectual horse power of entire AP, form alliance with PRP)....I wonder why he has cornered himself.

Develop a strategy with BJP:

a)BJP has to forcefully join the Telangana

b)Naidu gives everything he has got for United AP

c)Form alliance with PRP to deprive INC whatever seats in Andhra; Show it to public(in Andhra) that INC is "dividing" Telugus; Make PRP take a stand and god forbid if PRP vascillates it will wither away as a party.

They can nullify the losses in the other region (if division happens). But for all practical purpose, INC will backoff. If division stops, Naidu gains. BJP gets bandwidth in Telangana at least (there are no body anyway currently).

RaviBg wrote:
Then please bring in all old areas including madras. This is turning out to be like the chinese claims saying anything part of old empire should be part of new china.

If people of Bellary don't even want to be part of rayalseema or andhra, why are you raising that issue? Just like you don't want AP to be broken up, I too don't want Karnataka to be split and regions given to other states. If required, I am ok with N Karnataka being a separate state, given the lack of development there.

If TN wants Bangalore and mysore, and Maharashtra Belgaum etc and Andhra wants Bellary and Raichur, there will be no state called karnataka at all

Good, BJP should realize that point instead of playing stupid games in Andhra


RaviBg wrote:
Then please bring in all old areas including madras.

This will also come into consideration depending on DMK stand. People still remember that Potti Sriramulu died for Andhra state with Madras as capitol

..

Satya, now I hope you see what I am referring to. Shyam, you seem to have lost your marbles. While I do refrain from pointing fingers at one person, this needs to put down now.

Like I said before, the AP state issue will look like a squabble in the coming years. INC high command will take it's place amongst the Jaichands and Ambhis and other modern day quislings who caused India to unravel.

Satya_anveshi wrote:

Paul wrote:The arguement over Costa and rayalseema is misleading. The real impact will be felt on the regions west of Telengana in the coming years.

I disagree with this premise. Carving out Telangana will not change a thing in Maharashtra. If Marathwada and Vidharbha want to form a separate state, that is a different issue and I actually think it is a welcome change (in line with small and more governable states). No soul in those districts want to join with Hyd/Telangana.

I would like folks to look at this from a positive change to bring next level of development in our country rather than a divisive issue or a precursor to the proverbial uraveling of our state.

Yes, we need to carefully manage this change but should welcome it and ensure peaceful transitions.

RaviBg wrote:ShyamSP, I have said before too. The entire Telangaga issue was raised by telangana people only, and they have been raising it for last 30-40 years.

There is more than meets the eye. Current Telengana issue has its roots in Congress strategy in 1999 and later 2001 when TRS was created by Congress to screw TDP. I think Telengana would have realized a long back if intentions were correct and truthful and they would have agreed to sharing issues and separation intend to be peaceful

Don't get ticked off when some issues discussed here create dissonance in you. I really don't have any iota of ill towards Karnataka. At the same time, I don't want to discuss only politically correct (PC) details for you. I'm here dissecting political steps taken by various groups in this game.

ShyamSP wrote: Don't get ticked off when some issues discussed here create dissonance in you. I really don't have any iota of ill towards Karnataka. At the same time, I don't want to discuss only politically correct (PC) details for you. I'm here dissecting political steps taken by various groups in this game.

you were laying out your thoughts on the issue, and not what various political groups did. And your and a few other posts on this issue has revealed more than perhaps what was intended. Anyway, I have made my stand clear on where my thoughts lie. And you have said what was on your mind. This thread has been an eye-opener in more ways than one!

ShyamSP wrote:This will also come into consideration depending on DMK stand. People still remember that Potti Sriramulu died for Andhra state with Madras as capitol

I read that one of the Chola Kings had conquered territories or defeated some King in Himalayas; and brought Ganga water. They even constructed GangaikondaCholapuram city. Also Chola Kings had conquered vast areas of the current AP, Orissa, Karnataka, W.Bengal ithiyadi. Pandya and Chera kings had conquered parts of Srilanka too.

People still remember that.

My point being, I am tempted to report your post.

SwamyG wrote:

ShyamSP wrote:This will also come into consideration depending on DMK stand. People still remember that Potti Sriramulu died for Andhra state with Madras as capitol

I read that one of the Chola Kings had conquered territories or defeated some King in Himalayas; and brought Ganga water. They even constructed GangaikondaCholapuram city. Also Chola Kings had conquered vast areas of the current AP, Orissa, Karnataka, W.Bengal ithiyadi. Pandya and Chera kings had conquered parts of Srilanka too.

People still remember that.

My point being, I am tempted to report your post.

SwamyG, please don't report that post or any other. Let it stay!

about time....

Ravi & Shyam: Kindly resist the urge to call fellow Andhrites, Indians or BRFites as having or using Paki or Chini logic etc.

Paul wrote:Satya, now I hope you see what I am referring to.

Paulji,

Yes, I am/ I was well aware of what you meant or implied in your post and think my response did come out quite well and don't need any amendments.

We have a tradeoff to make: a)change for the better b) maximize our chances for growth and put behind "cultural" issues and recognize "economic" issues c) allow for as much local governance as possible

the above will come with a) changed political dynamics b) uncertainty of repercussions on other sub-regions and not on sovereignty c) of course uncertainty of the result of that experiment

IMO, I am willing to play this tradeoff with the confidence that we will win over this. I, personally, given the way our people live, don’t like status quo’s. Change will make us nimble. Sorry if this sounded like a sermon but that is what I believe in.

SwamyG wrote:

ShyamSP wrote:This will also come into consideration depending on DMK stand. People still remember that Potti Sriramulu died for Andhra state with Madras as capitol

I read that one of the Chola Kings had conquered territories or defeated some King in Himalayas; and brought Ganga water. They even constructed GangaikondaCholapuram city. Also Chola Kings had conquered vast areas of the current AP, Orissa, Karnataka, W.Bengal ithiyadi. Pandya and Chera kings had conquered parts of Srilanka too.

People still remember that.
...

SwamyG you think bringing Chola kings is supposed to create some kind of Takleef for Andhra? Southern part of AP was very much part of Chola empire and later Pallava empire.

I don't mind drawing a Chola state if that is what SRC decides

ShyamSP wrote:

RaviBg wrote:ShyamSP, I have said before too. The entire Telangaga issue was raised by telangana people only, and they have been raising it for last 30-40 years.

There is more than meets the eye. Current Telengana issue has its roots in Congress strategy in 1999 and later 2001 when TRS was created by Congress to screw TDP. I think Telengana would have realized a long back if intentions were correct and truthful and they would have agreed to sharing issues and separation intend to be peaceful

Don't get ticked off when some issues discussed here create dissonance in you. I really don't have any iota of ill towards Karnataka. At the same time, I don't want to discuss only politically correct (PC) details for you. I'm here dissecting political steps taken by various groups in this game.

1. This is Military and Strategy discussion forums. Granted that we all learn through out our life, most of us have at the least the minimum understanding that in the affairs of military, global strategy and global economics a whole lot goes behind the scenes and that we are not privy to all information and the experts and gurus of BRF painstakingly analyze and create the dots. So reminding us that there is more to the eye is liking going to Tirupathi and singing virtue of laddus.

2. You might not nurse ill towards others; but if you are going to shout "I see yeDu konDala Vada"; expect us to ask "Where, we want to see also, please". If you can not show him because of limitations then there is no point in shouting, no? There is a tendency in these posts for some of the members to say "We see more than you!, but we can not say much because of so and so reasons". Such posts are not dissection, but just teasers and rile up members. Hope you understand.

3. Looks like you did not get my point.

SwamyG wrote:There is a tendency in these posts for some of the members to say "We see more than you!, but we can not say much because of so and so reasons". Such posts are not dissection, but just teasers and rile up members. Hope you understand.

3. Looks like you did not get my point.

I said what was necessary that "Bellary was part of Datta Manadalam" in the first reply to Ravi. I could have said Guttaseema/original Rayalaseema, they all would have been same.

This is about state reorganization/boundaries. It is in the context to bring historical boundaries when Telengana boundary was also brought.

Before anyone points out, I wanted to point out an irory within my earlier post

put behind "cultural" issues and recognize "economic" issues

Telangana, may be by definition or some may call it that way, looks more like "cultural" but I refuse to define that way.

The more we tie ourself up with separate identities, the more enmity it is going to cause (This is age old British ploy which INC follows by the book and to the T). I would like analysts to make this an issue that all people can relate...economic is better.

Whenever I see a report- a recent news report in Chindu where some lecturers association has termed Telangana as NOT economic but a regional identify issue. I don't agree with them - it is not a "primary" issue.

Datta Manadalam sounds more alien to me that manu smrithi that we are alleged to believe and follow everyday.

ShyamSP I liked your posts on AP many times but you are seriously veering off on this one. Please take a break and comeback afresh.

Two/Three generations have passed with our current linguistic based states and the folks have developed a separate identity. That is why it is completely inceivable that people of other states rally around for other states.

For example, if Marathwada is asking for separate states and to include parts of Telangana a) how many from Telangana will join them. b) or even want to use that opportunity to part from AP.

the answer is zilch. That argument simply does not cut. It would have made some sense when they were different nations but we are not dealing with that problem here.

Further, in the interest of taking this debate to next level:

If we discount that fear and think that there is NOT going to be impact on any other part of India, How can both people from Telangana and rest of AP benefit from this division?

This imbroglio presents a nice case of political management.

Political leaders do face some real hard question though - like what I was told happened to PRP and may be bugging Naidu as well.

When the announcement came in and presented as fait accompli, Telangana PRP (it seems) has disowned Chiru , for his United AP stand, as their leader and put up a local PRP rep. This is kind of understandable in that Chiru took Rs 5 crores (almost a public fact) as party fund to give party tickets during elections. Reps gave the monies as they believed Chiru stood some reasonable chances of winning the elections (at least in the medium term if not immediate).

Be that as it may, when this test came along and the entire region is up in (perceived) euphoria of being carved as a separate state, what do their Chiru's party reps supposed to do?

If they go against the outcome (it was already announced! ) where do they stand the chance of ever winning again. They already got screwed for Rs. 5 crores in the last election when PRP performance was miserable.

For PRP, Chiru is the public face (onlee) and reps just leverage it. There is no team work, linkages, dialog, strategy/inputs between reps and Chiru. That is the fault with the PRP model.

Similar thing might have happened with Naidu I guess. Total ruckus onlee.

INC too has strong top down model but the middle core is strong as well. With chotu parties, there is no second, middle or anything - just the head.

It appears that the dissent actually came from within INC that may have given some time till people kind of took a step back and analyzed.

Satya_anveshi wrote:Naidu *if* he is a true/real leader has to really bite the United AP way, *believe* in it, and articulate his stand with everything he has got (he has good media backup, has past achievement to his credit/showcase, intellectual horse power of entire AP, form alliance with PRP)....I wonder why he has cornered himself.

Develop a strategy with BJP:

a)BJP has to forcefully join the Telangana

b)Naidu gives everything he has got for United AP

c)Form alliance with PRP to deprive INC whatever seats in Andhra; Show it to public(in Andhra) that INC is "dividing" Telugus; Make PRP take a stand and god forbid if PRP vascillates it will wither away as a party.

They can nullify the losses in the other region (if division happens). But for all practical purpose, INC will backoff. If division stops, Naidu gains. BJP gets bandwidth in Telangana at least (there are no body anyway currently).

Satya garu,
What is the need for CBN as a person to take the United AP bandwagon? Even if he "shows off" as ambiguous and not go by where his heart is (like Chiranjeevi), he is not damaging his changes in Non-Telangana areas.

Think deep...

His abilites to garner votes in the Andhra regions even if there is no split at a later date is not going to diminish. Every party there will be in the same position and INC will lose due to backlash. In such a fight TDP beats out PRP by miles. The caste combinations also helps him and also he can go on saying they made my hands tied and they sabotaged my TDP to create TRS and later Telangana. PRP is not tested in reality and his abilities to get votes will be down to few districts and no chance for him in Rayalaseema areas.

In summary, Irrespective of CBN's ambigous stand his losses in Andhra region are minimal. However, INC would still get 5% IM + 25% (SC/ST+EJ) = 30% in that region. There is 70% votes that will be work as a backlash against Telangana decision. PRP can get very minimal of that.

His ambiguity actually is the best he can do until the state division is completed. It will help him with the Telangana TDP cadre as the party is strong in the Telangana region. In reality it did show impressively in the Greater HYD elections just a month ago. We have to watch his moves in the Telangana region if the perception of the Telangana region population goes to "Telangana is not forming" from the current state. How his party will play the politics in this region and if he is willing to make some serious sacrifices to beat out the punch-line from INC and TRS here.

Since you started of the post if he is a *true* leader - Let me say what he should do if he is a true leader.

If the situation cools down without Telangana Formation, he should offer the CM post to a Telangana leader and tell him to create a cabinet of his liking and ask the Telangana leaders to remove all the Takleef that Telangana population has. He will still be powerful but not a Cheif Minister. In such a situation he will checkmate many souls (dead and alive) in AP.

Regarding BJP (though I am staunch follower), less said the better. They lost the plot completely as they drew a crap in their heartland Hyderabad. Analyzing their posture in AP is just waste of time. There is a apolitcal "real" difference in Andhra regions as compared to previous Telangana movement of 1969. It may be a generational thing. Huge majority in 1969 said "Jai Andhra" ( seperate Andhra) in response to seperate Telangana in 1969. It would have been very easy to seperate in 1969 however, Indira Gandhi decided against. This time there is huge majority who are against AP split. Whether they have locus standi or not is debatable as 60 years have passed. The politicains in area will be lynched by the mobs ( not organized ones) if anyone talks other than United-AP. Again the entire 5-crore may be sinners/bad people but that is the current mood. A single independent may have got more votes than all the BJP candidates together in Andhra-Rayalaseema regions and however, they bravely ventured to say "Jai Andhra" instead of "United Andhra". They faced the music.

What I am trying to say in both the regions BJP is so out of touch to a point they can be laughed off as some funny party like "Jaspal Bhatti". Inspite of such a situation, they still have chance in seperate Telangana and they can get back on older Nizam Takleef as it is still widespread in Telangana. If Telangana is seperated, very quickly the focus will move to Maoists and Nizam.

By the way PRP and TDP will not go for an alliance even if SP and BSP goes for an alliance.

SwamyG wrote:Ravi & Shyam: Kindly resist the urge to call fellow Andhrites, Indians or BRFites as having or using Paki or Chini logic etc.

It's good advice to keep a civil and respectful tone.

However, if someone sees a particular agitation or social movement as having the same or similar characteristics that underlay the Pakistan movement, then there is an obligation to note the similarity. On BRF such thinking or mindset ("we decided that we are oppressed by xyz, therefore we will make rivers of xyz blood flow, and build a xyz-rein paradise on earth") is recognized as being the social process that culminated in Pakistan.

The Pakistanis, before they became Pakistani citizens, with the mindset that this entailed, were Indians. They represented a Nazi mentality--believed that they could build a Hindu-rein country, the same way Nazis believed in building a Judenrein nation of "pure" volk. Anyone who knows even a little of the history of Hyderabad (that includes practically everyone on BRF I assume) knows that under the Nizam, the mentality that culminated in the advent of Pakistan reigned freely and became absolutely virulent in the 1947-49 period.

Anyone who is not blinded by religious blinkers (i.e., wrongly concluding from the the experience of Pakistan's infliction on India that the underlying mentality is the exclusive property of Muslims) can see that this kind of mentality is very much present in present-day Indians, long after those ex-Indians left to become Pakistanis. We as Indians made no conscious effort (beyond repeating lot of sentimental platitudes time & again) to eliminate or mitigate this underlying meme from our collective DNA. Any slight disturbance, which normal civilized societies resolve by lawful and peaceful means, brings out this tendency, and breaks out in violence against the "other". We have seen this in so-called border or river disputes between states, and in recent behavior of the Thackeray goons in Mumbai.

The current agitation about Telangana raises disturbing echoes of this same mentality that has been so detrimental to India. There is a narrative that is exclusively victimhood-based, with no hint of any individual responsibility or self-examination, and accompanying it is the constant refrain of violence and "rivers of blood." The worst and most pernicious kind of behavior is justified, because, after all, we were victims, and therefore have the right to misbehave. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to simply repeat useless platitudes about the joys of staying together, instead of taking a firm stance against a narrative that emphasizes self-pity, victimhood and justification of harm to the "other".

I believe that a pretty good case can be made on both sides for both keeping AP united as well as for splitting it up. That can be discussed in a rational way. But when detrimental and dangerous traits, of which we have previous experience, are exhibited, we in BRF have to confront them honestly.

[edited to remove offensive terms]

KLNMurthy wrote:It's good advice to keep a civil and respectful tone.

Indeed. So abusive terms like 'paki' and 'pakiness' should be avoided in this thread.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Muppalla wrote: If the situation cools down without Telangana Formation, he should offer the CM post to a Telangana leader and tell him to create a cabinet of his liking and ask the Telangana leaders to remove all the Takleef that Telangana population has. He will still be powerful but not a Cheif Minister. In such a situation he will checkmate many souls (dead and alive) in AP.

CBN is a true leader and stuck to the party and elevated himself as a leader of TDP of many regions leaving regional sentiments to regional leaders. TDP party preservation is utmost important than him being dragged into mud of regional rivalry. By allowing dual personality of the party he neutralized any Congress strategy to kill TDP from Telengana region. Now Congress is in much trouble than TDP as you said.

I don't think he is much into CM anymore given circumstances.

Nagam Janardhan Reddy fits the bill for being next CM (for AP or Telangana) provided he doesn't screw up like D. Goud. More than any other T leader, he was with 1969 T agitation and kept himself clear of Chenna Reddy backstabbing of T-movement by not joining Congress. He has T-movement credibility than many others if not all and is agreeable person to all regions as his thinking so far is Telengana separation on peaceful terms.

Satya_anveshi wrote:Well said RaviBg.

The primary reason for Hyd's growth is more of a central government than of local government. The foundations for public sectors, pre-ind institutions/central institutions, people's bent for education/technology (as in case with all southern states) have relatively less to do with local govts.

The educational institutions, public sectors, people's bent for education was there in Hyd for long time.

But the only thing Hyd famous for was communal riots 3-5 times a year.

Yep... The public sector was there till 1990s. But not much stuff was happening as far private not even TCS had operations. If you want a serious job as ECE/CS/Electrical Engineer, go to B'lore or Bombay. B'lore and Hyderabad were not even competitors. No one even used them in one line when it came to IT or Electronics.

If anyone thinks Central Govt. made it all happen for Hyd, they are living in fool's paradise. It was first the end of communal riots. All the infrastructure Naidu built in mid 90s remained vacant. Naidu realized that making a city into HiTech city is more than just providing infrastructure. It is a perception game. Then came Naidu with laptop, power point, Clinton, Gates visits. All those played a part in moving Hyderabad into several company's radar for the first time. When companies like Oracle started operations, waves of investors started moving into Hyderabad with ventures and the quantum leap followed.

Satya_anveshi wrote:Well said RaviBg.

I am not denying the role played by some in growing Hyd , the capital of AP and thus focus of modernization projects. It has also come up with massive influx into Hyd from other parts of AP (that is itself is not bad per se).

You have been a sane voice in this discussion. I am kind of surprised to see this tone from you. I want to dig little deeper into this sentiment.

According to every Telangana person I met/discussed in person or online, they come up with interesting words when they talk about people moving to Hyderabad from Costa/Seema for jobs: influx, settlers, occupiers, exploiters ...

So my question is: Does any Indian have the right to move to any place where he wants in the country? Should a person in Costa or Seema have choice to move to Hyderabad or for that matter to any place in India or buy property anywhere he wants such as Hyderabad? Should each state/region have a VISA policy? I read that China have this Visa policy where people from rural areas are issued visas to come and work in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing.

If a person in state felt he can move to other parts of the state for business/jobs freely which seem to anger others in that area, then it is a interesting dynamic in India.

Naidu took office in Sept 1995. Right?

Satyam was established in 1987; It was not the first IT company in Hyd ( I think Frontier, first IT company was established in 1984).

Wipro and TCS had altleast few thousand employees by then in Hyd. You know that Maitrivanam /Software Technology Park was buzzing with activity before 1995.

Do you know who these companies were recruiting besides fresh graduates - folks from DRDL/DLRL/ECIL etc. I even of knew people (scientist Es/Fs) working on important projects (from RCI you know that place ) wanted to get trained on AS400/C/C++ ( ) and board the IT jet.

Many of Wipro's /HCL's top brass were from ECIL Hyd.

CBN took it to next level and might also have played a great role being in NTR's ministry. It is a matter of great pride for Andhra for what he did - no denying this at all. Like I said, let's keep things in perspective.

I see a lot of sane discussion going on. Please continue.

RaviBg, Don't worry its not as easy as a midnight announcement. There are major repercussions in far away states from J&K to TN and Maharashtra to Bengal. All those leaders are also very concerned at the fallout.

When INC made its decision they did not understand all the ramifications.

I am done responding about Naidu and Hyderabad both of which do not represent the issue at hand. They are part of details.

-deleted-

Satya_anveshi wrote:Datta Manadalam sounds more alien to me that manu smrithi that we are alleged to believe and follow everyday.


If we discount that fear and think that there is NOT going to be impact on any other part of India, How can both people from Telangana and rest of AP benefit from this division?

Please check the below doc

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24609533/Article-on-Telangana

this provide find insight on why telangana needed - to all who belief that telangana is not necessary

http://www.andhrajyothy.com/mainshow.as ... c/29main27

Table below shows Telengana % of colleges, schools, jobs, water reserves, hospitals, banks, and electric substations. Telengana area according the news article is roughly 41% population-wise and 41% area-wise. Except for law colleges many are 40% or more. 59% of pharmacy colleges are in Telengana area.

ShyamSP, As a courtesy to others put a short two line description of the links.

Thanka, ramana

Shyam, is Hyderabad counted under Telangana statistics? if it is removed, the numbers might tell a different story, btw Rayalaseema isn't that different from Telangana however it had some useful leaders