AP Politics and runup to 2014 General elections

[Bade]

Breaking up UP further makes more sense, from an administrative point of view. Maybe nothing to gain in votes, so no incentive.

[gpati]

So in Brihaspati ji's 90 year circle theory, was there anything significant happenings in Andhra Pradesh 90 years back + somethings happening in AP which had impact on the whole nation?

If we take 2013-14 to calculate 90 circle.

Left radicals within Indian National Congress formed/joined Communist Party in Andhra Pradesh in 1920's. Subsequently, they organized peasant rebellions all over Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Raithanga Sayudha Poratam or Srikakula Raithanga Poratam or Challapalli Raitanga Poratam) against feudals (who jumped into INC soon after 1947). The movement peaked from 1940 - 1952. In fact, significant challenge to Nehru, in newly independent India, came from Communists from Andhra Pradesh and Bengal. Nehru crushed them with iron fist and also USSR ordered the Communists to give up armed struggle around 1952. Apparently, Nehru collaborated with Nizam of Hyederabd to crush Communists on both sides of Andhra.

Naxals (Maoists) and the constituency which votes for TDP, TRS (TDP till 2001), Lok Satta (TDP till 2006), CPI, and CPM are progeny of the very same radicals. TDP significantly influenced national politics from 1983 to 2004. Much of the present day top leadership of Maoists is from Telangana. So, 1920's set a precedent for left wing political mobilization in Andhra Pradesh.

Communists: 1925 - 1952

Naxals (later Maoists): 1967 - 1975
1969 was the year of first Telangana agitation just 2 years after Naxalbari movement.

TDP (pro left): 1983 - 2004
2001 was the year of second Telangana agitation just 3 years before UPA1.

[prahaar]

Uttarakhand maybe was different but even it has 10+ million

Uttarkhand came about because of Mandal politics. That was a state where the "Upper Castes" are in overwhelming majority and it becomes impossible to impose the Mandal politics on it. They therefore had to go separate.

Which part of Mandal politics is not implemented in Uttarakhand?

[RamaY]

Come on. Nehru was opposed to splitting Madras and set the domino rolling for linguistic states. It took the death of Potti Sriramulu and the law and order disturbances that followed in it's wake for it to happen and the telugu speaking areas of Madras went separate. It was only later they merged with Hyderabad state, despite the reservations of the Hyderabad folks on it.

To Vina and other "Madras" state perspectives...

AndhraPradesh and Telangana were always one state/region/culture in history. It was NiZAM who ceded the coastal Andhra districts to French and then to British as a 'gift' (a modern, liberal and progressive word for extortion money).

When India got independence it is natural for these districts to join with their original entity. In fact the old madras presidency/state was an artificial (not Indian) regional construct imposed by the colonial powers.

So when our Tamilan brothers question Andhra's separation from them, they should understand that Andhra's have undone British Colony and went back to their original existence.

Similarly the Hyderabad state of Nizam was nothing but another colonial (Islamic) construct that was imposed on Hindu India. That is why as soon as Hyderabad state was "liberated" the respective regions went back to their natural entities.

Unfortunately some people in India give more importance and values imposed on India by colonial powers and those colonial structures must be preserved. Irrespective of how old and powerful these colonial constructs are, the natural structure of Bharat must be protected and facilitated.

Fair enough, if Telangana people think they are another sub-culture and need separate state. If it is a natural system, they will progress. If it is not, they can and will always come back their natural being.

[vishvak]

Breaking up UP further makes more sense, from an administrative point of view. Maybe nothing to gain in votes, so no incentive.

The Brijbhoomi could become 'harit' pradesh with 40% 'minority' block voters. Its not actually minority with 40%+.

Wonder how Brijbhoomi became 40% minority and what were others doing. No one saw this coming?? Plus it's near Delhi-Gudgaav twin cities.

[kmkraoind]

Telangana- Congress begins operation TRS - Vicky Nanjappa

With K Chandrasekara Rao of the Telangana Rastriya Samithi not making any commitment on a merger with the Congress following the Telangana announcement, the Congress has now begun luring the TRS leaders into their fold.

The Congress has been in touch with many TRS MLAs in the past couple of days and are hopeful that at least 8 of them will join them in days to come. A core team of the Congress has been in touch with almost all TRS MLAs since the past few days and sources in the party say that they have managed to coax 8 of them to join them. The first three to be tapped by the Congress were

Chandraskehar, Vijaya Rama Rao and Chandulal. They held a meeting with Digvijaya Singh who had immediately after the announcement said that the TRS should honour its commitment to merge with the Congress.

Although these MLAs have agreed in principle to join the Congress, they are however a bit sceptical as of now. One of these MLAs who was approached by the Congress told rediff.com that the prospects in the forthcoming elections for the TRS is not very bright in case Telangana is announced. The Congress would have the advantage and we expected that the TRS would merge as was decided earlier. However we also need to know if KCR would continue to fight independently or not. In case we join the Congress today and later KCR decides to merge his party, then we stand no where.

KCR is however taking his time before making any commitment. He is looking to entering into a post poll alliance with the Congress. He feels that any decision to merge the TRS with the Congress now would result in a loss of identity.

The Congress is however not ready to wait and is expecting a commitment from him immediately. They say that they are not interested in a post poll alliance at the moment and would like to capitalise on this Telangana decision. Madhu Yaskhi Goud, Congress MP from Telangana says that his party would not want any of the pro-Telangana votes splitting. If the TRS fights the election on a separate ticket the votes will get divided between that party and the Congress.

Meanwhile all eyes are also on Vijayshanthi, the super heroine of Andhra Pradesh who was recently suspended by the TRS. The Congress is trying to negotiate a deal with the other MLAs through her. However Vijayshanthi has remained non-committal and is thinking of either joining the Congress or the BJP very soon. She may not want to stay in TRS as she views the suspension as an insult. Her future in any of the parties except the TRS would depend largely on whether they would give her a ticket from the Medhak constituency of which she is a sitting member.

The TRS is however in damage control mode and is holding meetings to ensure that none of its MLAs leave the party. The party does realise that it weakens in case there is an exodus at this stage and the bargaining capacity with the Congress becomes lesser if and when it decides on a merger. The TRS has however maintained that it would want a working association with the Congress but also added that all talks would only be held after the bill on Telangana gets the nod and signature of the President of India.

[Supratik]

TRS merger with INC opens up opposition space.

[vera_k]

In America it is called State vs Federal rights/duties/responsibilities ityadi.

Key difference here is that American states were sovereign entities with their own armies that chose to be part of the union. The only sovereign in the Indian context is the Center, and the identity for that sovereign is not strong enough to allow for democratic decision making. Clearest example here would be the case of Kashmir, where the territory would likely be an independent nation if the decision was left up to voters.

[prahaar]

In America it is called State vs Federal rights/duties/responsibilities ityadi.

Key difference here is that American states were sovereign entities with their own armies that chose to be part of the union. The only sovereign in the Indian context is the Center, and the identity for that sovereign is not strong enough to allow for democratic decision making. Clearest example here would be the case of Kashmir, where the territory would likely be an independent nation if the decision was left up to voters.

Do you remember American Civil War? Wiki source

Southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South").

Would use of force to ensure a state remains in the union without precedent in history? We should live in real world.

[ramana]

Breaking up UP further makes more sense, from an administrative point of view. Maybe nothing to gain in votes, so no incentive.

No it doesn't make sense in any way. Its another form of votebank politics.

I think no more break-ups should be the future.

[Hari Seldon]

vijayshanti is quite a catch in TG for BJP if they can get her.

[member_27444]

Vijayashanthi is Humpty Dumpty on the wall so is Jaya Sudha who is cross with herself ,for casting her lot with YSR

Both may jump into congress

[vera_k]

Would use of force to ensure a state remains in the union without precedent in history? We should live in real world.

If the Centre has a weak identity, local Indian states are even weaker. Else a war would have been fought. The debate around democracy in opposing division of a state ignores the fact that only the Centre is sovereign. The sovereign can therefore pretty much do what it feels like.

[ramana]

Err Center is not sovereign though INC would like to think like that ever since they dismissed Kerala CPI govt in 1957. Even now the T decision is a INC decision which is not yet vetted by MHA as stated by PC in the Lok Sabha speaking for Shinde who is sick!

[SwamyG]

In America it is called State vs Federal rights/duties/responsibilities ityadi.

Key difference here is that American states were sovereign entities with their own armies that chose to be part of the union. The only sovereign in the Indian context is the Center, and the identity for that sovereign is not strong enough to allow for democratic decision making. Clearest example here would be the case of Kashmir, where the territory would likely be an independent nation if the decision was left up to voters.

You could make the same argument for the Princely States that were "unionized" into India. Irrespective of the legalities, most Americans are united around some fundamental values, ideas and opinions. Similarly, for the most part bulk of Indians are united around the concept of (a) Ancient culture/tradition/religion (b)or the Modern entity India.

[ShyamSP]

Protests seems to be escalating to next level. Rail Roko for two days from 9th and Indefinite strike from 12th.


APNGOs serve strike notice
http://www.andhraheadlines.com/BrowseAr ... tId=118104

No let up in Seemandhra protests
http://www.andhraheadlines.com/BrowseAr ... tId=118098


Strange thing is English newspaper/TV media is silent on coverage so can't read any news from them. Only Telugu media is covering so they are limiting exposure of protests to AP only

6th day photos
http://archives.eenadu.net/08-05-2013/H ... m=break104

[Bade]

What gpati wrote kind of jelled with what I heard from the gentleman from Guntur at work. Since, it is all motivated from a sense of discrimination within an ethnic group, the partition of AP can be avoided. It is the local politics which is the obstacle to remaining as a single unit. INC is exploiting the situation or maybe as I said earlier it is trying to appease the Maoists/Naxals perhaps since Telengana seems to be where they concentrate.

I heard some connection of early Naxal leaders to Sanjeeva Reddy by relation (?). Is it true.

[Bade]

A week old article.
Rayala Telangana is a crude attempt to maintain Reddy dominance

Kingshuk Nag

Hard-nosed analysts know that although India is a democracy, Indian politics is all about caste.

The Congress in Andhra Pradesh has been the domain of the Reddys ever since it struck deep roots in this part of the world with the Kapus (an intermediate farming caste) and the Dalits as junior partners. Reddys form only 8% of the state's population but as feudal lords in a state where land reforms have been conspicuous by their absence, their influence extends far beyond their numbers.

For example, 10 out of the 16 chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh have been Reddys, with some serving multiple terms. With the creation of Telangana, the hegemony of the Reddys is expected to be broken with new caste equations coming into play.

The attempt to create Rayala Telangana, where Telangana will be fused with two districts of Rayalaseema, is a crude attempt to maintain Reddy dominance in one of the successor states of the present Andhra Pradesh.

"In the new Andhra state (proposed to be called Andhra Pradesh!), the Kapus and Kammas (represented by Chandrababu Naidu's TDP) will vie for power, leaving the Reddys nowhere. At least there must be one state we are able to dominate," a senior Reddy politician told this writer.

No wonder then that Jaipal Reddy,a Union minister and staunch Reddy, is credited with the Rayala Telangana plan along with Ghulam Nabi Azad. Azad's interest: there is an apprehension that in the new Telangana state, the spectre of Hindu-Muslim conflict reminiscent of the last decade of the Nizam's rule will hang thick. Stories suggest that Azad has been lobbied by parties like MIM (representing Muslim interests), that the forces will be more "even" if the two Rayalaseema districts are tagged on to Telangana.

Some Rayalaseema districts have large Muslim populations, being part of the Nizam's territories that were later ceded to the British. The BJP, conspicuous by its absence in Andhra Pradesh, is looking at the new Telangana as a launching pad in this partof the world.

Besides this caste rationale, the attempt to create Rayala Telangana is to stymie future demand for a Rayalaseema state. Even as the Telangana movement was raging, influential political figures raised the demand for a separate Rayalaseema state. Not surprising, considering the wide perception among people of Rayalaseema that they would be dominated by Andhra region folks in a new dispensation.

The demand included the creation of a new state, including Bellary district of neighbouring Karnataka that is historically part of Rayalaseema. Breaking up Rayalaseema, with two districts going to Andhra and two to Telangana, would ensure that the demand for a separate state will be nipped in the bud. People of Rayalaseema are distressed at the prospects of RayalaTelangana. The common man in Rayalaseema sees this as a blow to his identity.A senior IPS officer submitted his resignation from the services on Sunday to protest against the move.

Although Rayalaseema has been the home of many Andhra chief ministers starting with Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, who was later President of India, the region is marked by extreme backwardness. Once part of the Vijayanagara empire, the area fell on bad times later.

For hundreds of years till the 2000s, it was the state's wild west with a culture of violence, bombs and assassinations. There was no economic activity and unirrigated land was the asset over which families and factions fought and killed for generations.

This is why the people of Telangana are so cut up with the idea of being boxed in a new state with parts of Rayalaseema. "We don't even intermarry with them. Fusing Rayalaseema into Telangana will give them a free run here, where we don't want them," a journalist from Telangana told me. That is why the Telangana Rashtra Samiti which was in the vanguard of the movement has rejected the Rayala Telangana idea, as has the BJP.

But the arbitrators of the destiny of India sitting in New Delhi are drawing lines, much like the British, without understanding the ground reality. For them, dividing the 42 Lok Sabha seats in Andhra into two equal parts, each with 21 seats, is the idea of equity.

[Rony]

From Sadanand Dhume

Hyderabad Blues : The proposed new Indian state of Telangana is bad politics and even worse economics.

Is Telangana a good idea? Since last week, when the Indian government greenlit the formation of the country's 29th state, the question has roiled Andhra Pradesh, the megastate from which Telangana will be carved out pending parliamentary approval. As statehood activists celebrate, protestors from the rest of Andhra Pradesh have taken to the streets to vent their outrage.

At first glance the case for Telangana appears straightforward. Andhra Pradesh is one of India's largest states, with a mostly Telugu-speaking population of 74 million and an area the size of Colorado. From this Telangana will hive off 35 million people, and 10 of 23 districts.

India's experience suggests that smaller states—more culturally cohesive and easier to administer—tend to prosper. The most recent examples include the Hindi belt states of Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, which have grown relatively fast since their birth in 2000. To this argument Telangana activists add claims of government neglect, plus a supposed sense of separateness fostered by history.

Take a closer look, however, and the logic of Telangana begins to falter. For starters, the timing of New Delhi's decision appears driven by politics rather than principle. Polls show the ruling Congress Party struggling in Andhra Pradesh, which accounts for 33 of its 206 seats in Parliament—more than any other state. With national elections less than a year away, the Telangana announcement seems like an attempt to salvage a chunk of seats (Telangana will account for 17 of Andhra Pradesh's current 42 parliamentary seats) even if it means writing off the rest of the state.

Nor does the statehood movement itself inspire confidence. If anything, at its core Telangana represents petty chauvinism, the closing of the Telugu mind. On Friday, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, the leader of the pro-Telangana movement, warned that "Andhra employees working here should move back to their respective places. Telangana people would work in our government."

From the start, Mr. Rao's tactics have involved blackmail and intimidation. In 2009 he went on a hunger strike to demand the creation of Telangana, sparking protests and vandalism by his supporters. Many of these violent partisants were college students promised jobs that might otherwise go to better candidates from elsewhere in Andhra Pradesh. For the most part, other parties have simply gone along with this pandering.

But India cannot afford to cave in to the demands of every rabble-rousing politician peddling an identity and a grouse. In a country that is already hard enough to govern, the precedent set in Telangana will likely lead to an outbreak of similarly tumultuous movements elsewhere.

As for historical neglect, while it's true that many of Telangana's 10 proposed districts are poor, on many indices of income and development the region ranks above Rayalseema, another part of Andhra Pradesh. Nor have voters shown particular sympathy for Mr. Rao's demands. In the last elections, in 2009, his single-issue party lost three of its five seats in Parliament, and 16 of 26 seats in the state assembly. Indeed, Telangana voters have usually backed the same politicians as the rest of the state.

Then there's the economy. Andhra Pradesh ranks as India's second-largest state by economic output—$111 billion at current exchange rates. With 7.7 million people, its capital, Hyderabad, is the country's fourth-largest city by population. New Delhi wants Telangana to assume full control of Hyderabad within 10 years. From an economic perspective, this is daft.

Over the past 15 years, thanks in part to the efforts of the reformist former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, Hyderabad has evolved from a sleepy backwater to one of India's most important business hubs. Foreign investors include IBM, IBM -2.24% Dell, Oracle and Microsoft. For many Indians, the suburb of Cyberabad is synonymous with technology. The city also hosts the Indian School of Business, founded in partnership with Wharton and Kellogg.

Hyderabad has prospered because entrepreneurs from the rest of Andhra Pradesh plow wealth from agricultural surpluses into business, and because a well-educated global Telugu diaspora that sees the city as home. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories helped put India's pharmaceuticals industry on the world map. The Nagarjuna Group spans fertilizers, chemicals and power. The GVK Group has built airports in Mumbai and Bangalore and plans to expand into Indonesia. All were founded by people that Telangana partisans would consider "outsiders."

While the largest firms will likely find a way to stay put, the last thing investors need is uncertainty about Hyderabad's future. The prospect of surrendering the city to a petty chauvinistic party with no record of governance does not inspire confidence in either business or the diaspora. It's hard to imagine a landlocked city divorced from the entrepreneurial energy of coastal Andhra doing nearly as well.

This is not to suggest that India's internal borders are sacrosanct. Indeed, on administrative grounds alone the country's 1.2 billion people should be split among 50 or 60 states. But in order to work, these divisions must be seen to be above petty electoral calculations, enjoy the broad consent of the entire state in question, and be dictated by economic logic, not parochial passions. Unfortunately for India, Telangana fails on all three counts.

[Bade]

^^^ That summary in the last para says it all. Bad idea from the very beginning itself, that it found traction for so long is surprising.

[RamaY]

Bade ji,

That is the whole point, that has been argued on the forum for at least past 3 years.

The 3-5% communities Velamas, Reddys and Kammas are causing/splitting the state for their benefit. The 90+% population is being taken for a ride. Interestingly all these guys and the so-called BCs and Dalits think and say it is Brahminism that is hurting Hindus and India. Wonder if it is lack of historical knowledge or self-induced abrahamic-propaganda.

Interestingly in Andhra (like in other places) all these castes fall into the so-called Sudra varna, for there are specific Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaisya varnas/castes. That makes all this current history (at least since independence) a intra-Sudra fight to gain upper hand over the rest of the society.

The +ve impact of it is that Andhra Pradesh grew in the realm of economy, industry, agriculture and so on. We need this momentum to continue for at least 1-2 generations more.

The intellectual class need to go back to its roots/basics and become a true Purohita of the society. I already see this trend all over Andhra Pradesh.

Net, net all this churning is going to bring good future for Andhra Pradesh.

[ramana]

I think the big move is some sellout in Sept at New York on the sidelines of UN meeting. Hence create a big fire deep inside India to divert the attention.

[a_bharat]

Bade ji,

The 3-5% communities Velamas, Reddys and Kammas are causing/splitting the state for their benefit. The 90+% population is being taken for a ride. Interestingly all these guys and the so-called BCs and Dalits think and say it is Brahminism that is hurting Hindus and India. Wonder if it is lack of historical knowledge or self-induced abrahamic-propaganda.

Interestingly in Andhra (like in other places) all these castes fall into the so-called Sudra varna, for there are specific Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaisya varnas/castes. That makes all this current history (at least since independence) a intra-Sudra fight to gain upper hand over the rest of the society.

Please explain how these three castes are responsible for splitting of the state. All I can see from the above is your own prejudices.

[RamaY]

^ Please check who are leading all the political parties - Congress, TRS, TDP, Communists, BJP etc.,

Yes, I have prejudice. My prejudice is that I want Andhra Pradesh to be united if possible.

[ramana]

Economic Times has good historical prespective:
Andhra Pradesh a break-up after 58 years of chequered existence

Note they dont talk of the quiet prosperity under the TDP rule for 15 years!!!

NEW DELHI: It was billed as India's first linguistic state, formed in 1956 through a merger of the Andhra state with the Telangana region of the Hyderabad state. Though its template of a linguistic state was replicated in other parts of the country, Andhra Pradesh is breaking up after a chequered 58-year existence.

The pioneering experiment in making language the basis of state formation was doomed from its inception. For, AP was a forced union, as evident from the forebodings in the contemporaneous report of the States Reorganization Commission (SRC). The Andhra and Rayalaseema regions were forced on Telangana, primarily for the coveted prize of Hyderabad city and for the wealthy coastal area to gain control over the upper riparian area.

The new map of the landmass that is today called AP will be closer to the one around the time of independence. It was then an overlap of Madras presidency and the princely state of Hyderabad. Following the "police action" in Sept 1948, Hyderabad ruled by the Nizams became the last major state to join the Indian union.

In its three-year transition to democracy, the composite Hyderabad state, which comprised Telangana, Marathwada and northeastern Karnataka districts, was governed first by a military administrator (Maj Gen J N Chaudhuri), then a chief executive (ICS officer M K Vellodi). Hyderabad acquired its first elected government in 1952, when Congress leader Burgula Ramakrishna Rao was sworn in as CM.

The existence of the nascent Hyderabad state came under a shadow a year later when the Andhra state was carved out of Madras, following the death of Telugu champion Potti Sreeramulu in the course of his fast. This was the first break-up of a state on the question of language.

The Hyderabad state was feeling the heat of the Vishalandhra movement in the new Andhra state, demanding a unification of all Telugu-speaking districts. The movement was fuelled partly by the absence of a readymade capital in the Andhra state, which was being administered literally out of tents from the small town of Kurnool.

Though it was appointed in 1953 to pave the way for Vishalandhra, SRC headed by ex-SC judge Fazal Ali threw a spanner in the works when it gave its report two years later. It cautioned against any forced union saying "while public opinion in Andhra is in favour of the large unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself." Disregarding SRC's warning, the Nehru government yielded to pressure from Andhra. SRC has proved to be prescient.

Was Nehru so powerless in 1956 that he yielded to fasting Telugus from Andhra? What factors influenced the govt decision? Was it the need to subsume Hyderabad state identity? Was it need to provide funds for a new capital to be built in the midst of the second Five year Plan which was supposed to be dedicated to Science and Technology?
In 1956 Nehur was at height of his power. All his rivals were already dead and others were cowed into submission. There was no opposition party of note. the Commies were being discredited and his govt invoked Art 355 to dismiss the elected Commie govt of Kerala. It was way before the 1962 China debacle.
How could they yield to some starving Andhras?

[ShyamSP]

Bade ji,

The 3-5% communities Velamas, Reddys and Kammas are causing/splitting the state for their benefit. The 90+% population is being taken for a ride. Interestingly all these guys and the so-called BCs and Dalits think and say it is Brahminism that is hurting Hindus and India. Wonder if it is lack of historical knowledge or self-induced abrahamic-propaganda.

Interestingly in Andhra (like in other places) all these castes fall into the so-called Sudra varna, for there are specific Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaisya varnas/castes. That makes all this current history (at least since independence) a intra-Sudra fight to gain upper hand over the rest of the society.

Please explain how these three castes are responsible for splitting of the state. All I can see from the above is your own prejudices.

Let me put it differently, all these castes are Kapus - land-owning / peasentry castes from ancient times. Since 1900, they slowly moved to industrial sector also and same phenomenon exists across the 3 regions. They may certainly own more than 70% land and more than 70% Telugu-owned industries. They are not unlike such castes in other states.

Those castes are certainly NOT the reason for the split. Split reasons clearly lie with INC and BJP and their screwed up policies.

[Sushupti]

Live discussion on AJ
http://stream.aljazeera.com/

[ramana]

Hindu newspaper has interesting news reports.

All AP newspapers and outlets are totally factionridden.
Getting difficult to make sense of the issues.

[anjan]

How could they yield to some starving Andhras?

They didn't. They yielded to widespread rioting and breakdown of civil order over a large part of the province.

I can't see any good reason to not let large groups of people go off and form their own states and chart their own destinies as long as within the Republic of India. All this balkanization talk and emotionally charged messages are overdone. You're more likely, not less, to get fissiparous tendencies if you don't allow such. People feeling hard done by and with no recourse internally will look outside.

[ramana]

I am asking about the 1956 merger decision not the 1952 decision to bifurcate Madras Presidency.

[SaiK]

Yes, I have prejudice. My prejudice is that I want Andhra Pradesh to be united if possible.

I see two sides of the coin here

1. Losing of Hyderabad city infrastructure and revenue

2. The opporutnity of creating new infrastructure and revenue generation capability.

There is only one coin however... having caught the tiger tail now, there is no other option now other than to get the tiger tired out.

[ramana]

Can maim or wound the ringmaster?

[brihaspati]

How could they yield to some starving Andhras?

They didn't. They yielded to widespread rioting and breakdown of civil order over a large part of the province.

I can't see any good reason to not let large groups of people go off and form their own states and chart their own destinies as long as within the Republic of India. All this balkanization talk and emotionally charged messages are overdone. You're more likely, not less, to get fissiparous tendencies if you don't allow such. People feeling hard done by and with no recourse internally will look outside.

Or equivalently, people who have looked outside, need to justify that looking out by newly recognizing grievances. By that token all fissiparous tendencies should have died with the formation of the first "linguistic" state. Why the further splits that were not seen then as of paramount importance?

[hanumadu]

Bade ji,

That is the whole point, that has been argued on the forum for at least past 3 years.

The 3-5% communities Velamas, Reddys and Kammas are causing/splitting the state for their benefit. The 90+% population is being taken for a ride. Interestingly all these guys and the so-called BCs and Dalits think and say it is Brahminism that is hurting Hindus and India. Wonder if it is lack of historical knowledge or self-induced abrahamic-propaganda.

Interestingly in Andhra (like in other places) all these castes fall into the so-called Sudra varna, for there are specific Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaisya varnas/castes. That makes all this current history (at least since independence) a intra-Sudra fight to gain upper hand over the rest of the society.

The +ve impact of it is that Andhra Pradesh grew in the realm of economy, industry, agriculture and so on. We need this momentum to continue for at least 1-2 generations more.

The intellectual class need to go back to its roots/basics and become a true Purohita of the society. I already see this trend all over Andhra Pradesh.

Net, net all this churning is going to bring good future for Andhra Pradesh.

RamaY, If you are going to India any time soon, please ask around if Telangana has broad based support from all castes or is it only some castes. This is something even I would like to know. At least from my friends and from the reactions on my face book page, I get the impression that Telangana people in general want a seperate state.

[anjan]

Or equivalently, people who have looked outside, need to justify that looking out by newly recognizing grievances.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Fine, let's assume there is zero "real" reason for a grievance. So what? If a significantly large chunk of population(the districts making up AP in '53 and Telangana today) believes they can do better on their own why shouldn't they be allowed to try. Sure there should be common sense rules on how large a population can have their own state but beyond that why bother? And in all this what actually changes? Everyone who wants to can travel, work or live just as before. The same constitution. Same laws. So what does the country lose? What's a good reason not to let them? Because other people know better?

In this case the only real sticking point is purely mercenary motives over financial interests in Hyderabad. Looking beyond however why do you think other states should not be created if the demand exists on the ground.

By that token all fissiparous tendencies should have died with the formation of the first "linguistic" state. Why the further splits that were not seen then as of paramount importance?

That assumes that those are the only fault lines. Why should that be? Regions within current states may well have differences, perceived or real, aggravated by very real differences in growth rates and industrialization (LIke N & S TN). Personally I think the division along linguistic lines is a mistake given how strong those identities are(not that I can see what else the SRC could have done at the time). Moving forward though I would think having multiple states sharing culture and language would actually make it much harder to get secessionist movements off the ground.

[a_bharat]

Those castes are certainly NOT the reason for the split. Split reasons clearly lie with INC and BJP and their screwed up policies.

Exactly.

RamaY is unnecessarily bringing in his caste prejudices and his dislike/condescension of these castes into the discussion where as the real cause is obviously the greed/opportunism/bungling of all political parties at both central and state level and their pandering of the poisonous creature KCR at different points in time; add to that the correct/incorrect belief of the Telangana people that they are losing out to non-T people.

[ramana]

a_bharat and others, How do we move forward if those are the true causes?

[SwamyG]

Talking about caste, SHQ grew up in Cuddaph. She was told to her face about hitting a brahmin first when people encountered a snake and a brahmin.;

[Kakkaji]

Those castes are certainly NOT the reason for the split. Split reasons clearly lie with INC and BJP and their screwed up policies.

ShyamSP:

Aren't you doing the BJP a disservice by lumping them together with the Congress in this matter?

The BJP, as a matter of principle, has always supported smaller states, for administrative convenience. But, to my knowledge, they have not engaged in any 'machinations' that you accuse them of.

When the demand for 3 new states gained momentum during NDA rule, then Home Minister L K Advani clearly said that the BJP will create the new states only after the concerned state assemblies have passed the resolution for division, and they kept their promise.

In case of Telangana, the BJP has supported the demand for Telangana, but they have not supported creating it by an administrative decision by the Central Govt. In any case, the BJP has had minimal presence in AP. They are not the ones who could have mobilized street agitations in support of Telangana. The agitations for Telangana have been led by local parties. The BJP may eventually benefit from it, but it is not their ‘machinations’ that have caused this situation. The honor of keeping Telangana fires burning does not belong to BJP.

Lumping the BJP with the Congress in this matter, is similar to the argument by the Khalistanis – “because a Hindu-led Congress screwed us, so all Hindus are our enemies”.

The way I see it, in the Telangana case, 2 Telugu (T and non-T) cats fought each other and asked the Congress monkey to mediate, and the monkey ate the roti. Now the cats are blaming everybody in the jungle but themselves for losing their roti.

ramanaji:

I understand that you are distraught about the planned division of AP, but I think you have injected too much emotion into this debate when, as an admin, you should have controlled it. As a result, now it has descended to the level of name-calling whereby some people are blaming T folks, some are blaming non-T folks, some are blaming particular castes, some are blaming all national parties. Pretty soon someone will blame all of India and ask for secession and merger with Pakistan.

JMHO please

[RamaY]

RamaY, If you are going to India any time soon, please ask around if Telangana has broad based support from all castes or is it only some castes. This is something even I would like to know. At least from my friends and from the reactions on my face book page, I get the impression that Telangana people in general want a seperate state.

I too believe all Telangana people want a separate state, NOW.

But the question is, is Telangana a political issue or a social issue. What negative social memes/interactions that triggered an agitation of T-agitation proportions?

If we are to believe this is a political issue, then we need to see the players, their preferences and prejudices in political context.

Same way, others think I am prejudiced; I was thinking aloud if this issue is prejudiced. Nothing more, nothing less.