AP Politics and runup to 2014 General elections

[LakshO]

Lilo garu: your buffalo analysis is

[Muppalla]

Let me write one more long post on my last day of vacation Somethings are repetitive from the past but why not one more time as we are really heading for a split.

and when was the "lazy" comment made?! Muppalla ji, is this true?

I don't mean lazy as in lazy. My apologies if it offends anyone but I don't know how to express it better than that. May be I should use "laid back". I never meant that they don't work hard given an opportunity. For whatever the reasons drive to explore the opportunities is always found wanting. For example there are a lot of unskilled jobless but we see auto rickshaw drivers in Hyd these days mostly from UP and Bihar. See the construction workers and most of them are again from North AP or even from Orissa and Maharashtra. Why not abundantly from Telangana? House maids (one that comes for cleaning utensils/wash clothes etc) used to be from Telangana(let us say local) all my childhood. Now we get from Srikakulam or one time we had someone from Maharashtra. After we built a house, for doing small wood work we were looking for a carpenter. Not to generalize but a guy came who is Telanganite with all the equipment and he did a very slow (which we didn't care) but good job but he left his tools at our home. He does not care to take them back and after several calls he did not bother to take his own equipment. We finally gave them to someone else. It is a lot of investment for a self-employed person. My intention is not generalization but you can observe it. All these are nothing related to elites etc., and all are small time bread earners and what is stopping the Telangana folks to go after so many opportunities in the city while several others from various regions can do. My curiosity increased further and went to see the contract workers on the outer ring road and everyone I met was non-Telanganite. These are all private sector unskilled jobs to even think of bias etc. The contracts are given companies from all over India.

There are certain things due to historical nature of the region and the way most of the population was brutalized for couple of centuries, the population has become very incompetent and there are vast areas that have given up to join regular life with respect to rest of India. That is why I write what they needed was a breathing space before they get on competing with rest. To really know you need to talk to old people like your grand parents and their friends in that age group. (unfortunately this group is coming down as we all age). My brother's wife is pure T (unfortunate in this era we have to write pure and impure due to KCR's antics ). We are pure coastal ones but substantial number of marriages with deeper T folks happened in most of our families. I give one example based on interacting with my sister-in-law's grandparents (aged 90) of how the T-region is systemically brutalized by Nizam. In those days per them they speak Telugu but write Urdu. What that means is for several generations there are few literates and among those also a substantial number did not read and write even their mother tounge. If you close you eyes and get into their shoes and do some comparison of situations in you mind (very difficult) you will understand their plight. Second example is at a public drinking water taps, it is always Muslims first, next comes doras (means the feudal lords that help Nizam. Caste wise currently most of them are either Velamas or Reddys. Note: NO GENERALIZATION as many of these folks are part of freedom movement too) and lastly rest. Many such examples I learnt from my interaction with elders at family gatherings.

We talk about blacks getting spanked or dalits getting spanked and visit holocaust museums more than the regular commons getting brutally (physical, mental and materially) spanked. Telangana region did go through such a worst past. Due to this most of the folks have little or no work and no education including skills for regular economics. This led to laziness (helpless ness) and then to a lot of alcoholism. That is why it took a lot of time to get the region to decent productivity. You talk heart-to-heart without using offensive or derogatory language most of the Telanganites accept this situation but they also add a caveat (because one has to get back to erstwhile pride) saying that this is past and things are rapidly changed/changing. However, the reality is still somewhere in the middle.

When you don't have any means or abilities to get to means, the mind also becomes enslaved. In one way or other most of the Indians have this mental slavery towards west. Similar but very different variants and confused stuff creeped into psyche of T. This is not just my personal inference or analysis and this is also based on feedback from same elders I reference above. In my personal view a lot of "offence taking" and some false pride of "Nizam life is better than current stuff" and false ego. (Note that similar variants exist elsewhere too)

Now this region's neighbors (east and south) are those who go anywhere to do anything to earn and grow. Menacing and cut throat. They have to suddenly compete with what they are not equipped to in several ways. During Nizam time a lot cannot come because of Nizam's visas and also due to lack of infrastructure etc. This is the reason for so called "settlers", the term was used by Nizam and continued even today. The settlers from Coastal areas are not some looters. They are the ones who helped in education and skills development. As no one does for a charity they ended up buying lands and occupying in jobs. Not everything that AP did is bad. There were times when there are no skilled teachers and hence teachers from Andhra ended up in T region and the families settled. Regarding agriculture also the skills are always found wanting. The folks from other side settled because they are knowledged. They worked hard and got the arid-lands to produce something. I am not kidding even now there are portions in villages that are called with names such as "Andhra palli/settlement", "Guntur palli" even in relatively developed districts like Warangal, Nizamabad. There used to be poster called Vishnua who wrote this and I got confirmed later from my relatives. The naxals don't collect hafta from these "settlers" but from the innocent T farmers. Again see how submissive nature the population is as opposed to learning the tactics of the "settlers" in fighting with Naxals. Now the same Naxals (who ironically fights for T cause) actually help the "settlers" of "Andhra palli" or "Guntur Palli" to get the land leased at lower costs. You have population numbers but you always lose out to some intelligent small section in the cut throat competition. The folks cannot even watch their backs if someone is ripping them off. It is pitiable but where in the world anyone can help such folks? However, they look visibly annoying because they join KCRs types to be part of noise and this is where all the energy comes out. Devesh garu's observation is absolutely right, T folks talk a lot and A folks talk less and do more

That is why I always think there needs a granular white paper "what to do" and "how to do" without referencing to past ailments and Andhra's dominance. This never happens an no single Telangana planner or intellectual gets into such things.

Few thing I personally noticed and I practice when I talk to T-folks :
(1) No personal jokes and leg pulling stuff as the tolerance level is too low ( Imagine the plight of those who come from Krishna Godavari districts. They mostly talk with leg pulling stuff Unless you understand the dual meanings you will be fooled easily. Yeah they use a lot of aap/meru and respectful language ) Watch movie "Life is beautiful" and the interaction between the coastal girl and Telangana guy .

(2) No offensive talk at all. They very easily get offended. Zero thick skins.

One has to understand that these areas have gone through for multi generations, such a horror even after independence until Razakars.

The topic always is what could have been better. The Article 370 that is given to JK would be a perfect fit for this region because that would have given a self adjustment with a breathing space. However, for all practical reasons and territorial integrity India had put a lot of money on periphery and did not have means to spend on the interior. You can't complain as urgent priorities always takes precedence. In addition, how would India be if more areas request such things? Balkanizaiton would be easier and hence founding fathers have to take a way to build a strong India.

The other thing where skills such as useful education or regular skills of unskilled labor are used. The region lacked even in this area. The only thing that could have made a difference is agriculture but again it needs a lot of lift irrigation. The urgent need of Green revolution led to help the regions where there is bang for the buck. This region needed help in such a way where there is less bang for more bucks. The past history, India's post-independent priorities led to deep rooted sentiment which is called affectionately as "Telangana Sentiment". The sentiment is very simple "we are cheated and we are not helped" while the others are becoming prosperous in front of us. The folks who exploit this feeling tell that the prosperous ones are the culprits and they looted you and they are vermin on the face of the earth and we need to root them out. Rest of story is of cooking facts, cooking histories, "Nizam is better than Andhras" and all the unnecessary mudslinging follows. Biases galore in that talk. The fact that T-region of AP is well developed when compared the Nizam areas that went to Maha or KA is always ignored. But the comparison and expectation are always with KG delta.

The worst thing that happened was the 90s liberalization and CBN's mad drive towards privatization and reduction of subsidies. This region people are not equipped to adjust like the other sides and get on to something else when Government recedes. That led to more "sentiment".

There is lot more positivity in Telangana that does not get mentioned. There are certain values and culture that are far better intact and secure in spite of brutal rule in this region as compared to "run only after money and everything else is compromisable" values in the coastal region. I don't know about Rayalaseema as I have very little to connect via families.

What is the future:

(1) It is only a matter of time. The state split is inevitable if not now sometime in the next term. For the past 10 years every vested interest that want to strip and rape has raped the state enough with their agendas. Things have come this far and folks that are sold on "T-sentiment" will get alienated if not split. The other side is easy to get back to life and if you provide another investment engine like Greater Vizag (very near to make it as big as Hyd) they will be satisfied.
(2) Some folks will definitely try exclusivity and some attacks on settlers, Andhras are to be expected. However, it will not go bad as this will not be successful in this era of India.
(3) Article 370s or some wild stuff is not possible
(4) Government employment and assured simple employment is not possible in the changed economic models of India. Vast areas of Telangana and population is nor realizing this at all and the gangs of TRS, congress have given a lot of false dreams to keep the T-sentiment alive. The bitter reality will come home.
(5) If the residual AP really gets its work going and create investment opportunities, then more problems due to KCR types. The more they put hurdles in HYD region, the more loss to Telangana revenues. The investors are those who don't have sentiments. Whatever that comes to HYD instead will go to new economic corridors of AP. Now the costal folks will not put their bets on HYD which is a loss if one thinks through. Until now they left the Delta areas for farming and some capital industry. Services, small scale is left to HYD region.
(6) The real problem is there is still leadership in residual-AP that can steer things even though many are crooks. However, there is no leader worth mentioning who can give confidence in Telangana. Forget comparing to Modi, but it does not even have someone like Mamta or even Laloo. Raman Singh will be a dream but Naveen is acceptable. Unfortunately no one is visible at all. Hope some hidden talent emerges.
(7) The dreams will be shattered as there will no government investment and folks have to depend on private sector jobs and there will be no decent agricultural investments too. The government is exiting and not entering anymore and that is where new feeling of cheating will emerge.
(8) Before the old guard ( this is the real shaker and mover of T state movement that exploited the sentiment) of Nizam takes over, there needs to be a visionary leadership that is badly required to emerge. Otherwise disasters galore because some dependence such as the law enforcement agencies (Geryhounds etc ) gets split, Bastar type stuff can remerge inside deep forests. I sincerely hope some structures continue as common between two states.

If we take out sentiments and be really practical, this whole state split is useless. (Call me biased as I still have coastal mind ). Ideal (not realistic) implementation is to have some regional councils with more political and economic devolution. Should have election like assembly elections. The regions should be Coastal, Rayalaseema, Greater Hyderabad and Telangana. That will pin down the real Telangana with some accountability and responsibility for the politicians. The politicians instead of blaming Andhras, they should use the 42 seat political structure to get the government funding towards SEZs and some water resources stuff. More focus should be on modern skills to and get to more industry than agriculture. It is practically useless to focus on agriculture for this region.

Language:
The language (based on how you want to look at it) the only areas where it is pure is Krishna, Godavari districts and to a large extent north AP. There is accent variations though. The minute you cross river Krishna into Guntur district (Tenali Taluk is more like Krishna district) the rough language starts. (meeru, emandi stops and nuvvu starts. Vellu becomes po ) The language accent keeps flattening out as we reach to Chittur district. The language is not that variant in districts such as Nalgonda and Khammam and even Warangal. A lot of folks in other districts speak wrong grammer and it is not just usage of Urdu mixture or accent. To me a lot of times it is just plainly wrong but that is how it emerged and nothing to complain. Everything has a past and a reason. The fact is that you have a crowd that is like Delhiites (pull the legs at the first opportunity) combined with those who just cannot tolerate any thing like that which the reason for friction. No tactics to hit back.


JohneeG garu, This post is dedicated to you but I still will lose competition with you in writing really detailed posts Regarding your question, I never will like the state split but I can see the reasoning/feelings.

Let me tell you one thing why I don't like and it is not the bs about revenues and taxes. That is all the tools of "everything is fair is war and love". It may be silly but if you interact with more grandfather type folks you will get a different perspective. For our generations it is always about growth, infrastructure and what not. My mom's maternal uncles and grand fathers are from region called Nandigama in Krishna district which is like stone throw from Nizam border in Nalgonda district. Those old men tells stories of how they helped the folks who fought with Nizam and their pride is helping the Police action against Nizam. Some battalions stationed in these villages to launch the police action. For us it is all silly because now we talk about missiles and commandos etc. But for that generation which is struggling just after independence all these things are of pride. Luckily for them they are not alive to see crooks like KCR or Lagadapati etc.

My whole grouse is that we don't need to split and in addition even if we split we are not splitting with honor but we are doing an ugly shitty way for over a decade now.

Now I am really lazy to think of going back to work tomorrow after two weeks of vacation .

[devesh]

But look at Telangana Buffaloes, they have big mouths so their bray is more louder and sonorous.
How do you think dandakaranya was reduced to its current level hain ji? Telangana Buffaloes literally chewed the shit out of Dandakaranya. This is because, a Telangana Buffalo is evolutionarily sup-e-rear with its big mouth that can can gobble up Mulch in doubly quick time .
Further their horns are small and curly - you may even think they are cute, compared to the grotesque and menancing horns of Buffaloes in rest of AP. An evolutionary leap no doubt - the cute curly horns no longer get struck in the overhead forest thickets . Point a Telangana Buffalo a patch of green in the middle of an forest , it can make its way doubly quick compared to SA Buffalo .

Most importantly the water in telangana is pristine as it flows out through the natural filter of (remaining) Dandakaranya so Telangana Buffaloes are capable of high thoughts and determined action unlike their batshit crazy counterparts in SA . So when you come across a Telangana Buffalo which is looking your way from a distance chewing cud , don't think that its just chewing cud as a buffalo generally does, its in fact sizing you up whether to ignore you like an insect or acknowledge you with its loud bray.

I'm reporting the above post. and request mods to take effective action.

[disha]

My whole grouse is that we don't need to split and in addition even if we split we are not splitting with honor but we are doing an ugly shitty way for over a decade now.

Make that over four decades now. Particularly in '69 more than 350 people (Indians, Telugus ...) died.

[Lilo]

Excellently diagnosed Muppala ji regarding the problem(In this particular instance onlee, iam Ignoring a few generalizations slipped in for the sake of your whole argument) , but then as usual I disagree with your prognosis and the prescription as a matter of principle wrt my firm belief in a united AP representing Telugus as a distinct part of the whole.

Devesh ji,
Don't be such a bad sport - among other things, by announcing your reporting on the thread without providing a reason for me to appreciate.

[devesh]

oh! come on now, Lilo! a man of your calibre in forming analogies can surely figure it out! do you require brownie points to motivate you?!
on this medium, only virtual BP's are possible, I'm afraid.

[Lilo]

^ No can do, I am afraid Devesh ji.

But then its alright by me if you want to keep the basis of your takleef secret by refusing to share it in the open.

[devesh]

^^^
"basis of my takleef": interesting! takleef is such a strong word. more like objection. the point of reporting that post should be obvious. the moderators will easily grasp that "buffaloes" was used repeatedly to condescend a region and its people. I have my faith in BRF moderators to understand abuse when they see it.

as for you not finding anything abusive in it, I'm afraid that is an imbalance in your perception. I can do nothing to cure you of that.

[Lilo]

...moderators will easily grasp that "buffaloes" was used repeatedly to condescend a region and its people.

^ OK.
Thanks for sharing.

Condescend ?That too, at the expense of onlee Telangana you claim ?

Again you apportion all the debt(and blame) to the SA region folk while keeping the outrage (and revenues) for Telangana region folk, I am afraid Devesh ji.

[ramana]

Lilo, I am a town person. I thought Andhra side has Ongle cattle famous in Texas as Brahma bull.

So what is this other buffalo you have seen?

[devesh]

what blame? what revenues? "all revenues"? once again, show me where I advocated for "all revenues" or even anything close to that? this is the usual goebbelsian tactics that we've come to expect. just like ShyamSP claiming that Vengi kingdom stretched into Karimnagar, and when asked to provide even the tiniest iota of proof, claiming that he couldn't be bothered as he didn't have the time or some such excuse.

[Lilo]

Devesh garu,
I am referring to your outrage onlee for telangana buffaloes - in which case I felt it was similar to how this discussion began.

Ramana garu,
As I said earlier I don't know jack shit about Buffaloes and their behavior. My post was my own imagination mixing certain elements observed in new buffaloe breeds being introduced in AP(especially in Hyd and surrounding T region - like Murrah - I think this is originally from haryana - suited for semi arid climes of T , with huge builds,curled horns,large productive udders etc) and other older breeds of water buffalo originally prevailing in the state suited for humid climes (paler color , lesser size, long horns,bloating cylindrical body for floating, short legs etc) .

The whole post was mirroring the wording and the kind of generalization s being made on Telanganites vs SA and began couched in the same wording used to generalize people based on flimsy premises. It was meant as a parody of the behavioral theories being created to show people are "different" on this thread.

[ShyamSP]

what blame? what revenues? "all revenues"? once again, show me where I advocated for "all revenues" or even anything close to that? this is the usual goebbelsian tactics that we've come to expect. just like ShyamSP claiming that Vengi kingdom stretched into Karimnagar, and when asked to provide even the tiniest iota of proof, claiming that he couldn't be bothered as he didn't have the time or some such excuse.

No amount of help will help you if you are stuck in "Telangana" vs "Coastal" mind even for history. You can check all Eastern Chalukyas' areas and can figure out to where Vengi kingdom consolidated into. Even Kakatiyas wanted to claim Vengi but couldn't win so settled to claim some northern areas and found capital in Orugal/Warangal.

Even Satavahanas ruled these Eastern Telangana to lower delta areas. So-called Telangana was only until Warangal on the east even during Decaani Sultans rule. Only after Nizam gave Circars to British we got current cutoff of Telangana and non-Telangana border. You can rub 100 years land division and people on history before that.

[ramana]

ShyamSp, Some of the Nizam's regions acquired from Tipu were merged with Karnataka and Maharasthra. Is the public in those states equally at risk of underdevelopment and has same grievances?

[ShyamSP]

ShyamSp, Some of the Nizam's regions acquired from Tipu were merged with Karnataka and Maharasthra. Is the public in those states equally at risk of underdevelopment and has same grievances?

Grievances are there. Recently Congress announced special packages for Nizam Karnataka areas. They may not have twisted leader like KCR to call for other Kannadigas bhago slogan. However, from my visual observations of Nizam areas of Maharastra, I doubt Nizam Maharastra areas improved any way unlike Telangana people except for Aurangabad area.

[Shanmukh]

ShyamSp, Some of the Nizam's regions acquired from Tipu were merged with Karnataka and Maharasthra. Is the public in those states equally at risk of underdevelopment and has same grievances?

I don't know about Maharashtra, but Hyderabad Karnataka is certainly underdeveloped, and there is a lot of resentment towards old Mysore folks. It is basically what Muppalla-ji said. A long period of deprivation, which has led to poor economic and educational indices. Fortunately for us in Karnataka, we have not yet garnered a KCR who wants to throw out us old Mysore folks. Also, unlike 10 districts in AP, Hyderabad Karnataka is just 3 districts (Gulbarga, Bidar, and Raichur - in terms of the original districts, I mean). So - a Hyderabad Karnataka state is economically infeasible. But when it comes to deplorable infrastructure, educational and economic development - Hyderabad Karnataka is just as neglected. There is also considerable bitterness towards the old Mysore folks.

[shyamoo]

108+ Muppalla garu,

Exactly my sentiments. Proper leadership and vision has been lacking in T region. Success begets success.

A certain generalization is inevitable. Are all A folks successful business men? No. Are all T folks failures? No. UP and Bihar have produced the most number of IAS/IFS etc afsars. So, that makes them smarter than the rest? This is generalization and stuff like this best avoided/ignored.

Some have had the opportunity and have made good use of it and others haven't. There are a lot of dynamics involved. Capital for one. Personal example. My dad was responsible for the layout of the canal system for a newly constructed dam. He had the final say on where the canals would go. Infact, he had made the original plans too. We could have bought the best possible lands at throw away prices ( Rs. 5000/ acre ). But we did not have the money ( My dad is a civil engineer with no money, imagine that !!! ). We do not have any property to talk of that could be used as collateral to borrow money to invest in these lands. So, who ended up buying most of these lands? Folks from A region. Good for them. They had the money and ended up outbidding everyone else.

Now let's, take the same example and analyze the options that we had. We could have borrowed money from finance companies at high interest rates and bought these lands. But if the roi period for the investment is too high, then we lose money in the long run. We do not have any experience in cultivating the land and will need additional funding to do so.This too has to be financed. What if the crops fail or prices go down or any other scenario which results in loss for the year. Another year of financing. Where do we get the money from to keep going? Family has no experience in business either. So if you notice, the thought process is that of one with low risk tolerance and comes across as lack of drive/zeal.

The same situation for people with access to capital will look at it as completely viable. As long as you have the cash reserves to handle temporary setbacks, it should be a no-brainer.

I have a close buddy of mine from Vijayawada. When we discussed the issue of capital or the lack there of, he said that he looks at it differently. If he has, Rs 5 Lakhs, he starts looking for property worth Rs 30 Lakhs!! Funding for the rest comes from borrowing from various sources ( usually without interest ). He has done this numerous times. His grandfather was an MLA of his area and his dad is independently very rich. Like I said success begets success.

I was once at a party where an A guy claimed that A people are more intelligent than T people. I'm like 'WTF' . How exactly did he come to this conclusion? I was genuinely curious. His statement as such doesn't bother me ( doesn't make me smarter or dumber either way ). It did bother my other T area friends. I ended up arguing with them as to why should they be bothered by the statement. That is his opinion. Let him be. I guess, I'm not a typical T guy.. I have a thick skin

[ramana]

VNS, I came across rural Telangana folks in Pune and Mumbia. They were very hardworking folks. One of my nephews married a girl whose parents were from Telangana and settled in new Zealand. Very learned and hardworking folks.
It was they who made me go on a quest to learn more about the Satavahanas.

[Muppalla]

Some have had the opportunity and have made good use of it and others haven't. There are a lot of dynamics involved. Capital for one. Personal example. My dad was responsible for the layout of the canal system for a newly constructed dam. He had the final say on where the canals would go. Infact, he had made the original plans too. We could have bought the best possible lands at throw away prices ( Rs. 5000/ acre ). But we did not have the money ( My dad is a civil engineer with no money, imagine that !!! ). We do not have any property to talk of that could be used as collateral to borrow money to invest in these lands. So, who ended up buying most of these lands? Folks from A region. Good for them. They had the money and ended up outbidding everyone else.

Now let's, take the same example and analyze the options that we had. We could have borrowed money from finance companies at high interest rates and bought these lands. But if the roi period for the investment is too high, then we lose money in the long run. We do not have any experience in cultivating the land and will need additional funding to do so.This too has to be financed. What if the crops fail or prices go down or any other scenario which results in loss for the year. Another year of financing. Where do we get the money from to keep going? Family has no experience in business either. So if you notice, the thought process is that of one with low risk tolerance and comes across as lack of drive/zeal.

90% of the normal middle classes will be like this. no difference there at all.

I have a close buddy of mine from Vijayawada. When we discussed the issue of capital or the lack there of, he said that he looks at it differently. If he has, Rs 5 Lakhs, he starts looking for property worth Rs 30 Lakhs!! Funding for the rest comes from borrowing from various sources ( usually without interest ). He has done this numerous times. His grandfather was an MLA of his area and his dad is independently very rich. Like I said success begets success.

This kind of stuff is only possible in a buddy-buddy system. I have a bunch of Sikh friends here and they buy stuff like that. Who ever has money funds the other guy's business and this guy also does the same. This is very very effective among a lot of coastal folks as well. Kammas mastered it. It is very rare you can see such a phenomenon in any T folks. For example, in HYD there is one if you know called as Kolan Raghav Reddys who have lots of lands and they are well known in lot of circles. In fact property wise they are truly big. Instead of using the lands that they have and doing real estate business they sold their lands to Vertex builders (Rajus from Bheemvaram WG). To me the deal is really stupid. Some money and then about five homes (one from each complex). They may have got few crores instead of really getting 200cr venture like the vermas of Vertex did. They are very close to my brother and I asked why the hell you can't do everything on your own. You also have the capital and as the market is so hot you would have never lost anything. Even if you are dumb you still would have made money. Over a glass of wisky he tells me, anna this is all too much of work and you have to do 24/7 like a dog. See that Verma can he even sleep? I sleep happily. For us they are very nice and close friends and I cannot insist that is wrong way of thinking. They are so good folks and they do every religious thing in our complex whether is Ganesh puja or an Ayappa puja. Their families are very good folks. Staunch BJP folks but a lot of soft corner to Jagan and YSR. what can you call this other than not having drive to do big or different? But on wishky he also says saala verma due to my land see how big is he. Vertex constructed so many villas and apartments and not one apartment was sold less than 75 lac. They are happy to know the roads are named after them and there a marriage party hall named after them but they did not do justice to their potential.


I can't say all Telaganites are like this but as you say generalization happens and it is inevitable.

[devesh]

what blame? what revenues? "all revenues"? once again, show me where I advocated for "all revenues" or even anything close to that? this is the usual goebbelsian tactics that we've come to expect. just like ShyamSP claiming that Vengi kingdom stretched into Karimnagar, and when asked to provide even the tiniest iota of proof, claiming that he couldn't be bothered as he didn't have the time or some such excuse.

No amount of help will help you if you are stuck in "Telangana" vs "Coastal" mind even for history. You can check all Eastern Chalukyas' areas and can figure out to where Vengi kingdom consolidated into. Even Kakatiyas wanted to claim Vengi but couldn't win so settled to claim some northern areas and found capital in Orugal/Warangal.

Even Satavahanas ruled these Eastern Telangana to lower delta areas. So-called Telangana was only until Warangal on the east even during Decaani Sultans rule. Only after Nizam gave Circars to British we got current cutoff of Telangana and non-Telangana border. You can rub 100 years land division and people on history before that.

Satavahanas rule all of Deccan including East and West Coasts.

Eastern Chalukyas ruled the eastern portions of modern-day Telangana and some of the Kosta areas.

Vengi is a later-day successor of Eastern-Chalukyas, who were one among the subordinates of EC. their primary base was in Delta region. they never expanded out of it. forget Karimnagar (Indroor), they never even rule North-Kosta or any where South of the Delta. they were just a delta-based power. nothing more. nothing less.

SV was the one power which consolidated both coasts.

now, that's some history for you, if you actually care to understand it.

[Dasari]

ShyamSp, Some of the Nizam's regions acquired from Tipu were merged with Karnataka and Maharasthra. Is the public in those states equally at risk of underdevelopment and has same grievances?

Yes, they do. In most cases they too demand Telangana like special privileges. There was a great article (under opinion sction) in Hindu dating back to 2004 elections where the marathwadans were lamenting that they didn't get any deals like gentleman's agreement or GO610 like what their counterparts in Telangana got. I don't have access to this opinion but here is what people from Karnataka Hydearabad ( who think they got even more raw deal) think.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/03/18/stories ... 051200.htm


It is all relative. Had they had state capital or the most developed area of the state in them, it would have been a rallying point for opportunistic politicians to ask for separate state. That is the difference between Telangana and other two regions of the Hyderabad state.

[Vayutuvan]

Muppalla garu:

What "pure language" you are talking about? Recently I have read a vishwanAtha (Please note not viswanAdha since we are talking pure and impure) satyanArAyaNa essay which puts paid to all this "pure" and "impure" shibboleths.

I had been to and was educated in the "pure" east and west gOdAvaRis and have several close (very close) family members from Guntur, Krishna, vishAkha paTTaNam - their vocabulary and accent is as different from gOdAvari telugu as telangAna "vAdIs" telugu is.

[kmkraoind]

I think there is religious-cultural aspect of not developing Nizam areas. If kaffirs aka Hindus start hardworking and start accumulating wealth, it would attract rabid razaakars. This attraction not only rob their wealth, but whole family will be tortured. As a counter, the folks in Nizam areas started to earn just to earn their livelihood or will spend their earnings immediately instead of saving it due to fear of looting of RoPs. Its a whammy, it reduced saving culture or future orientation. Whereas Kosta folks have developed their savings and even become entrepreneurs with the surplus money.

[RajeshA]

Continuing the Lok Sabha strength of Congress for passing Telangana Bill

Lok Sabha strength of UPA

Congress - 205
BSP - 20
TRS - 4
NCP - 9
RJD - 3
RLD - 3
NC - 3
JMM - 2
IUML - 2
KC - 1
AUDF - 1
AIMIM - 1
BVA - 1
Swabhimani Paksha - 1
________________________

That is 256 MPs

Kerala Congress support is doubtful as it seems to be moving to NDA

Big Change
Since it seems Congress is moving towards an alliance with Lalu Prasad Yadav (RJD), JD-U would not be supporting Congress on Telangana Bill. Nor has Nitish Kumar received his special package for Bihar from UPA and the chances for that don't look good.

From these 255 MPs subtract all the SeemaAndhra MPs deciding to rebel - 5 to 19 MPs.

Also

1. INC (205) has three rebels tending towards BJP: Rao Inderjit Singh (Gurgaon, Haryana), Sanjay Singh (Sultanpur, UP), Uday Pratap Singh (Hoshangabad, MP)
2. BSP (20) has one rebel tending towards BJP: Vijay Bahadur Singh (Hamirpur, UP), who had praised Modi after the "puppy" remark.

Samajwadi Party, DMK, TMC would all be voting against Telangana Bill and so would the CPI-M. CPI may vote in favor.

Telangana Bill just does not have the support any more in Lok Sabha. Congress may not have more than 238 votes for the Telangana Bill.

[Dasari]

Rajesh ji, All they need is simple majority of the members present. I don't think BJP can afford to vote against the bill after all their public statements. Most likely they will abstain from voting. In that situation 238 is more than enough. is it not? However, BJP may obstruct tabling the bill as there is not enough time to discuss it and the fact that assembly came down so hard against the bill. But the way mafia is passing the bills recently, anything is possible. It all depends on how the TDP+ BJP alliance is forming. If the alliance is certain, congress will be desperate to break it.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh ji, All they need is simple majority of the members present. I don't think BJP can afford to vote against the bill after all their public statements. Most likely they will abstain from voting. In that situation 238 is more than enough. is it not? However, BJP may obstruct tabling the bill as there is not enough time to discuss it and the fact that assembly came down so hard against the bill. But the way mafia is passing the bills recently, anything is possible. It all depends on how the TDP+ BJP alliance is forming. If the alliance is certain, congress will be desperate to break it.

But BJP has already stated unequivocally that they would not support the Telangana Bill. I understood it as they would vote against it, because it does not go into the concerns of SeemaAndhra.

It is of course true that Congress could get other parties to abstain from voting, so they may still have the simple majority even if BJP votes against. However at various times others too have spoken in favor of voting against the bill (TMC, DMK, SP, CPI-M).

On the other hand, time may just run out for Congress to really put up the Bill. That would be even better, as BJP can then claim that Congress was never serious about passing the bill, after all they had 10 years to do it, so why wait till the last moment.

[vivek.rao]

Didn't they adjourn the parliament?

[Muppalla]

Didn't they adjourn the parliament?

Yes. There will be one more session in Feb and there is also a talk of special session after Jan 23 just for T bill.

[vivek.rao]

Why didn't they take up No Confidence Motion against UPA?

[Shanmukh]

Why didn't they take up No Confidence Motion against UPA?

It might make the Cong martyrs in Telangana - the people whose government was destroyed by Eebil Communal Forces (TM), aided by the Crafty SeemaAndhra Moneybags (TM) to stop the formation of pristine Telangana. Telangana Talli was backstabbed by the SeemaAndhra Teli!

[ShyamSP]

Why didn't they take up No Confidence Motion against UPA?

They (14 Seemandhra MPs) did. It was speaker was adjourning cleverly every afternoon soon after she reads no confidence motion. Parliament abruptly ended as soon as Lokpal bill passed.

Here is comment from Congress MP who is part of the motion submitted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HngnGXzjm8


===
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89rBvC7otVA

Also in the video, TDP MLC Rajendra Prasad clearly accusing Sushman Swaraj and Kishan Reddy for mis-guiding BJP on T issue. Apparently BJP agreed to supporting no-confidence motion but Sushma over-rode BJP and said no support for the motion.


Anyway, that video is about discussion on the BJP Seemandra NOT supporting the bill leading to split in BJP. Maybe Kishan Reddy days are numbers as AP BJP chief.

[Yagnasri]

Is assembly still sitting?

[Rony]

Psychological and Emotional repercussions of T-agitation and Andhra Pradesh division

http://headlinestoday.intoday.in/progra ... 32350.html

[Rony]

STATE DIVISION – FEDERALISM BY JP

The October 3 decision of the Union Government to divide Andhra Pradesh and the subsequent developments raise important questions about federalism in India and the future of the nation. Several states have been formed after 1950, but this is the first occasion when a major state is sought to be divided without the consent of the state legislature, and without a negotiated settlement among the stake-holders and various regions, and in the face of fierce opposition from vast sections of the public.

All major federal democracies have incorporated in their Constitutions the provision that a state cannot be divided or merged with another state without its prior consent. This is the essence of federalism. The United States, Australia, Germany, Canada and Switzerland follow this model. Similarly Brazil, Argentina and Mexico follow the same pattern. Even a unitary country like Britain, while dealing with regional assemblies of Wales and Scotland, follows such a federal principle in practice.

Indian Constitution-makers gave considerable thought to the issue of formation of new states and reorganization of states while drafting the Constitution. Article 3 of the draft constitution prepared by Constitutional Advisor (Sir B N Rau) in Oct 1947 reads as follows:

“The Federal Parliament may, with the previous consent of the Legislature of every Province and the Legislature of every India State whose boundaries are affected thereby, by Act-

create a new unit;
increase the area of any unit;
diminish the area of any unit;
alter the boundaries of any unit;
alter the name of any unit;
and may with the like consent make such incidental and consequential provisions by such Act as it may deem necessary or proper.

2) When any such Act creates a new unit, then as from the date of commencement of the Act that unit shall be deemed to be included in the First Schedule to this Constitution, and when provision is made by any such Act for the alteration of the area or the boundaries or the name of any unit, then as from the date of commencement of the Act any reference in that schedule to that unit shall be construed as a reference to the unit as so altered.”

Later, The Drafting Committee revised it with the following proviso:

“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 boundaries or name of any state or States for the time being specified in Part-I of the First Schedule, the views of the Legislature of the State, or as the case may be, of each of the States, both with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill and with respect to the provisions thereof have been as ascertained by the President; and

Where such proposal affects the boundaries or name of any State or States for the time being specified in Part-III of the First Schedule, the previous consent of the State, or as the case may be, of each of the States to the proposal has been obtained.”

However, the Drafting Committee and Constituent Assembly were keenly aware of the circumstances prevailing in the country at that time. India witnessed partition of the country, accompanied by unprecedented violence and bloodshed, and the largest forced mass migration in history. In addition, there were several kinds of States – Part A, B and C, and there was need to reorganize all the states and fully integrate the 552 princely states. If the consent of every State or Unit was a pre-condition for altering boundary of a State, reorganization of Indian States could easily have been mired in disputes, and would have been a prolonged and excruciatingly difficult exercise, delaying and hampering the nation-building efforts. Therefore they wanted to prevent Parliamentary paralysis while reorganizing the States. Consequently, the final text of Article 3 as promulgated provided for the President’s recommendation and ascertaining of the views of the State(s) concerned.

Subsequently, in 1955, on the eve of linguistic reorganization of States, Article 3 has been amended (5th Amendment) to provide for a timeframe for expression of the views of the legislature, with a provision for the President allowing a further period of time on request. Clearly, this timeframe was incorporated to ensure that the impending States’ reorganization could be carried out smoothly without unreasonable delays.

Experience has shown that our nation-builders were wise in drafting the Constitution to suit our requirements. More important, successive governments have been very mature and wise in applying Article 3 and in dealing with States. While prior consent of the State was not necessary under the Constitution, in practice every State has been formed with prior consent, and in most cases after a detailed, impartial examination of the issues by an independent commission and based on its recommendations. Only in the case of the Punjab, there was no legislature at the time of dividing the State in 1966, but a broad consensus among all stake-holders was available and there was no opposition to division of Punjab. Also the division was carried out based on the settled linguistic principle, and a Parliamentary Committee examined the issue of boundaries of the new states and other related issues, and gave recommendations which were implemented in their entirety.

So far, the Parliament and Governments have acted with restraint and wisdom in dealing with boundaries of States and formation of new States. They rejected the notion that anything could be done to alter the boundaries of States provided it is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. While prior consent of state legislature is not mandatory, in practice care has been taken to obtain the consent of legislature, or to act only on the express request of the State. The 1956 reorganization of States was based on the fundamental principle of language, and there was broad national consensus on the issue.

The States’ Reorganization Commission in its report (1955) in Para 107 noted wisely:

“Any measure of reorganization which is likely to create tensions and disharmony must weaken the sense of unity among the people of India and should not, therefore be countenanced”

The SRC further stated in Para 111 (iii) as follows:

“But while the building of contented units, strong enough to bear their share of the burden, is an important objective, it is no less necessary that the links between the units and the nation should be equally strong so that under the stress of regional loyalties, the Union does not fall apart”.

The Commission went on to caution in Para 112 as follows:

“It follows that, while internal adjustments at State level are to be desired, it is imperative to ensure that these do not lead to maladjustments at the inter-state and national level. From the point of view of national unity, therefore, reorganization has to aim at a two-fold objective:
Firm discouragement of disruptive sentiments such as provincialism or linguistic fanaticism; and
Consistent with national solidarity, provision of full scope for the unhampered growth of the genius of each group of people”

It is this maturity and wisdom that served us well over the past six decades. As the Sarkaria Commission noted in 1987 in paras 2.29.06 and 2.29.07:

“In all, during the last 37 years, 20 Acts have been enacted by Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 to bring changes in the areas, boundaries and names of States ……

“It is noteworthy that these legislations were passed either with the consent of the States affected, or on the recommendations of a Commission or Committee set up for the purpose…. Questions relating to readjustment of boundaries of some states still remain unsettled. The need for Articles 3 and 4 in the present form has not disappeared”.

Clearly, Articles 3 & 4 in their present form are enabling provisions empowering the Parliament to act in an exceptional situation when national interest warrants it, or to settle marginal boundary disputes between States when they are recalcitrant and all efforts to reconcile their differences and arrive at a negotiated settlement have failed. The framers of the Constitution had not intended to give Parliament arbitrary powers to redraw boundaries of States at will; nor did successive Parliaments and Governments act unilaterally or arbitrarily without genuine consent, broad consensus or negotiated settlement.

Even after 1987, in every case of new State formation, the prior consent of the Legislature of the affected State was obtained, and only then did the Parliament act. Even in respect of Pondicherry and Goa when it was a Union Territory, the wishes of the people and their representatives were respected, though neither consent of the Union Territory is needed, not is it necessary to ascertain the views of a legislature of the Union Territory. The broader principle of federalism and willing consent of the constituent units and their people has always been deemed to be necessary before a state is formed or a territory is merged, unless overwhelming national interest demands action by Parliament. The same procedure has been scrupulously observed while creating the new States of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh in 2000.

Dr Ambedkar stated in his reply to the debate on States’ rights in the Constituent Assembly as follows:

“The second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override the States. This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in mind. The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature of the Constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to emergencies only”.

It is precisely this spirit that informed the actions of Union Government and Parliament over the past six decades. Such admirable wisdom and restraint have been evidence in respect of formation of states on every occasion. There were certainly blemishes in application of Article 356 earlier. But over the past two decades Indian federalism has matured a great deal more. The Supreme Court verdict in Bommai Case (1994) made Article 356 more or less a “dead letter” as Ambedkar hoped. Though the Finance Commission’s recommendations are not binding on the Parliament and Government, the recommendations of every Finance Commission in respect of devolution of resources have been accepted and implemented fully over the past six decades. Since the report of the Tenth Finance Commission, there has been greater transparency in devolution, with most of the tax revenues of the Union being treated as the divisible pool, and a fixed proportion of it is shared with states, and this proportion is decided by the Finance Commission from time to time. With liberalization and expansion of economic freedom, States are now more in control of their economic future. With the decline in importance of new public sector investments and reduced political control of such investments, there is little scope for discrimination or favouritism in the Union’s dealings with States. As a result of all these developments, India is moral federal in nature today than ever before in our history as a Republic.

These developments do not mean that states can act as they please; nor does it mean that their territorial integrity is inviolable. Clearly, there is one nation and one citizenship, and territorial integrity of the nation is paramount. However, within that overarching framework, States too exercise limited sovereignty, and federal spirit informs the operation of our Constitution. The Constitution never intended to make India a unitary country with States functioning as municipalities, and their very survival as political entities dependent on the will and whim of the Union Government. Nor did the actual operation of our Constitution over the past 63 years suggest a de facto unitary State. In fact, federalism has been deepening in India. This is in keeping with global trends. Even a unitary country without written Constitution like the UK is becoming a federal country, with regional legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising considerable power. Even Sri Lanka is now attempting to institutionalize a federal model to accommodate the aspirations of Tamil-speaking people. Pakistan, despite decades of turbulence and dictatorship, preserved its federal structure.


Our settled constitutional law practice in respect of States’ formation can be summed up as follows:

New States are formed, or boundaries of existing states are altered only with the consent of the affected States. Only in exceptional situations of national emergency or overwhelming national interest would Parliament be called upon to act on its own without the consent of States. When there are strong popular demands for division of a state or altering the boundaries of a state, consent must be the guiding principle as a general rule. However, when there is polarization and serious divergence of views, patient negotiation and adjustment and fair reconciliation through a process of give and take should be the norm. The Parliament would ordinarily act only after such a consensus and negotiated settlement are arrived at. Only in extreme and compelling circumstances, when unity of India or its security is at stake, or overwhelming national interest demands adjustment of boundaries, would Parliament act without the consent of States affected. In redrawing boundaries of any State, Parliament would act at all times with great restraint and circumspection.

The Punchi Commission on Centre-State Relations in its report (2010) in para 4.2.02 stated as follows:

“In practice it is rarely possible for the Parliament to ignore the views of the States. The Central government, in effect, cannot concede to the demands of regional groups/communities for a separate State unless such a proposal is received from the State(s) in which these groups are currently located.”

This principle can be slightly amended based on the experience relating to Uttar Pradesh. On Nov 23, 2011, a few months before the State Legislative Assembly elections were due, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed a resolution seeking trifurcation of the State. Despite the State’s consent, the President, the Union Government, and the Parliament chose not to act, and for good reason. The Assembly resolution was clearly for reasons of political expediency to gain short-term electoral advantage, and was passed weeks before the general election was due. Clearly, States cannot be divided for temporary electoral advantage of one party or the other. If there is no informed consent, and if broad consensus among all regions is not clearly manifest, division of States for short-term electoral gains will lead to anarchy, and will seriously undermine our federalism, and indeed the unity and integrity of the nation itself.

The UP episode demonstrates that the settled principle now is that the Union will not ordinarily act without the State’s consent. Even when the affected State consents to altering its boundaries, the Union reserves the right to reject it on broader national considerations. In other words, in order to alter the status quo in respect of boundaries of States, ordinarily consent of affected states would be necessary. But a State’s request for altering the status quo need not be granted unless the Union is convinced that the broader national interest is served by such a decision.

Even colonial rulers paid a heavy price by acting precipitately without the consent of all stake-holders. The partition of Bengal was effected by the then Viceroy Lord Curzon, against the wishes of large segments of population. There might well have been sound administrative reasons for such a partition; but the consent of people affected was not obtained, and a consensus was not arrived at. People suspected that it was a deliberate ploy to divide the national movement and sow seeds of communal disaffection, and rebelled against it. As a result, the national movement gained great momentum, the chasm between the colonial government and the people widened, partition had to be annulled in 1911, and that bitter episode led to many lasting consequences.

In the light of these historical and constitutional developments and the evolution of federalism in the Indian context, the determined efforts of the Union Government and its oft-repeated declarations that Andhra Pradesh will be divided irrespective of the State Legislature’s views pose a grave danger to federalism and unity of India. Andhra Pradesh was formed with the prior consent of the then Andhra State Legislature, and the then Hyderabad State Legislature. When two popular movements for division of the State were launched in the three regions – in Telangana in 1969-70, and in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema in 1972-73, – it was the Union Government which encouraged all regions to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Corresponding Constitutional provisions were put in place to safeguard the interests of all regions. An explicit and implicit compact was made by the Union with the people of Andhra Pradesh to the effect that the State would remain united. It is on this basis that people migrated on a large scale to the other regions and to the capital city of Hyderabad, and built their lives, livelihoods and the State’s economy. In this backdrop, any redrawing of the boundaries would need another agreement arrived at by the affected parties through patient negotiation, and the Union has a seminal role in helping reconcile conflicting interests harmoniously. Parliament can act only on the basis of such an agreement, consensus and consent of the State. Any other approach would be ham-handed, arbitrary, uneven and runs counter to the principles and practice of federalism as they have evolved under Indian conditions.


The circumstances of October 3, 2013 resolution of the Cabinet and subsequent developments make it abundantly clear that the Union is acting arbitrarily, contrary to past precedent and practice, in haste, and with short-term electoral considerations in mind. There is not even the minimum effort to genuinely ascertain the State Legislature’s views and to accommodate them, let alone obtain its prior consent. There has been no honest effort to encourage detailed discussion and negotiation among all stake-holders, and no effort to arrive at a negotiated settlement satisfactory to all regions.


It is such arbitrary actions with short-term electoral calculations in mind that created grave crises for the unity and integrity of the nation in the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir in the 80’s. Fundamentalist religious groups prone to violence and bloodshed were encouraged in the Punjab for partisan political gains, and Punjab and India paid a heavy price for such a folly. Similarly, the elected Government was dismissed by engineering defections and on spurious grounds in Jammu and Kashmir in 1984, and subsequently an electoral alliance was forced on the unwilling regional party, National Conference, in 1987. As a result, terrorism reared its ugly head, and the nation continues to pay a heavy price.


If now, a new precedent is established by dividing Andhra Pradesh without the consent of the State Legislature, and without a negotiated settlement reached by all regions, it could lead to serious disaffection and maladjustment at the inter-state and national level. Such a precedent may eventually lead to division of any major State without the willing consent of the State and negotiated settlement of the stake-holders. The resulting linguistic disaffection, regional stresses, and maladjustment will eventually threaten national unity and integrity, and there is every danger that the Union will fall apart within a generation.

The way the President and Parliament handle the Andhra Pradesh issue will, in a fundamental sense, shape the future of the Union itself. This is a defining moment not for Andhra Pradesh alone, but for our federal Constitution and India itself.

Undoubtedly there is large support for the formation of Telangana state in the Telangana region outside the Greater Hyderabad city. Equally certainly, there is overwhelming opposition to division of the State in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, and in Hyderabad city. It cannot be anybody’s case that status quo ante should, or can, be restored. But what is needed is not precipitate and arbitrary action by the Union, but pains-taking efforts to assist negotiated settlement reconciling all conflicting interests. In a highly polarized situation like this, when about 30# people fervently want division, and about 70% of the people are vehemently opposed to division of the State, there has to be a negotiated settlement satisfying all, or at any rate minimizing dissatisfaction to all. The Union cannot create a group of winners, and a much larger group of losers. That will be a recipe for disaffection, disharmony and threat to national unity.

If such a arbitrary decision by the Union becomes a precedent, any and every State could be divided or boundaries altered without the State’s consent, and without a negotiated settlement. That will effectively convert States into municipalities, and India into a unitary State. Neither the Constitution makers, nor nation builders intended such an outcome. And India’s future will be in peril if such an effort is made to make the nation effectively unitary at this stage.

It is in critical moments like this that the President and Parliament have to act with great restraint, foresight and wisdom. The President is not only the head of the Republic, but he is also a part of the Parliament. The President is elected by members of both Houses of Parliament as well as members of State Legislative Assemblies. In a fundamental sense the President represents the nation – both Union and States – and is the final defender of the Constitution and federalism along with the Supreme Court. This is therefore a fit case where the President should exercise his constitutional duty independently before recommending introduction of any Bill to divide the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The leaders of Parliamentary parties too should act with clarity and wisdom, and with the knowledge that division of a State without the State’s consent and a negotiated settlement among all stake-holders converts the nation effectively into a unitary one, and every State of the Union will, in future, be vulnerable to unilateral action for short-term electoral expediency.

The Constitution, the President, the Parliament and the political parties will be put to a severe test in this case, and the way they respond to this challenge will shape the future of our Republic, and the future of federalism in India.

[devesh]

Just read that a Coke plant in AP was shutdown by workers in protest of Dr. Khobragade's mistreatment. I think we should take note of this. There are many who claim that language is such a huge hurdle in India that Indians in one region cannoy synpathize with those in others due differences in language. More importantly, this incident highlights the bond that Indians have with each other. Across caste, regional, and linguistic lines.

[Yagnasri]

The plant is said to be biggest in India.

[shyamoo]

Call me a cynic, but I think there might be some other underlying issues that the employees might be trying get addressed and are using this situation to do so. I hope that I'm wrong in my assumption here.

[ramana]

There is something stirring in Telangana region that could unleash pent-up six hundred years of anger.

[ramana]

Any updates on AP?

[RajeshA]

Any updates on AP?

When assembly comes back from the Christmas & New Year break on Jan 3, they'll take up the Bill.

Published on Dec 30, 2014
Can Andhra Pradesh legislature vote on Telangana bill?: Times of India

Heard on Twitter, many Congress MLAs 80+ would be resigning from AP Assembly. Just a rumor.