Telangana Crisis – United We Stand, Divided We Fall – Part1
TweetWe are pleased to have Vamsi Poondla write a post on this blog. He is a regular visitor and commenter on this blog. Please encourage him with your comments. – Sukumar
—————-
From the moment Telangana state announcement came on December 9, 2009, the entire Andhra Pradesh is in a political turmoil. I would like to present the background of this issue and events that led to this situation. Since it is a lengthy post(by my standards) which needs lot of research, I am presenting in two parts. Before I go further this is the disclaimer – I am from Sri Amarajeevi Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore district. As you can see from the name, my district is named after Potti Sriramulu , whose fast-unto-death is one of the triggers for linguistic reorganization of states. So, I may tend to be a little bit biased for United Andhra. But please correct me if I go wrong anywhere.
Let me start explaining the three major regions in AP – Coastal Andhra(a.k.a Coastaa/Sarkaar), Rayalaseema(a.k.a Ceded) and Telangana. Out of these three regions, Rayalaseema is most underdeveloped and arid region. With no major rivers flowing through and no major irrigation canals, the state of Rayalaseema is pathetic. This I have first hand knowledge because I stayed in Anantapur and traveled extensively through villages of Anantapur, Cudappah, Kurnool and Chittoor districts. Coastal Andhra belt is generally considered to be very rich in agriculture – 3 river basins are in these districts – Godavari, Krishna and Pennar. Culturally also -language, food etc, this area is least affected because it is farthest from the Orissa, MP, Maharashtra, Karnataka and TN. Coastal Andhra has it’s own share of challenges because three districts – Prakasam, Srikakulam, Vijayanagaram are very backward comparable with Rayalaseema districts. Coming to Telangana – besides Hyderabad and it’s neighboring districts, other districts that are well developed are Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar and Mehbubnagar. The underdeveloped districts are Adilabad, Nalgonda, Nizambad and Medak. Of these Adilabad is most underdeveloped and it has lots of adivasis.
Andhra Pradesh as we know was formed on 1st November 1956. The events that lead to this is an interesting story by itself. If we start from the period of Mughals, the most of the present AP region including the coastal belt was under Golkonda Sultanate. But as Mughal empire weakened, Nizams of Hyderabad started becoming more independent and as part of the agreements with the East India Company, they ceded most of the Rayalaseema and Northern Circar (coastal) districts to the British. But Nizams kept themselves a huge territory under their direct control. Like with all princely states, the British maintained very cordial relationships with these rulers as long as they are no direct threat and they have the trade agreements. Post independence, Hyderabad Nizam contemplated to stay independent apart from swaying for a short while towards joining Pakistan. But Sardar Vallabhai Patel did not allow this to happen. He executed Operation Polo and annexed Hyderabad state into Indian Union. But Hyderabad remained a separate state (with portions of present day Karnataka and Maharashtra).
In the Madras State, Congress the only significant party of India during that time, had a dedicated PCC (State Congress Committe) for Andhra. After Potti Sriramulu’s death (and sacrifice – I really dont know of any others who really died during fasting that too for 58 days), state of Andhra was formed with Kurnool as capital. Within 1 more year, United Andhra was formed merging the Telugu speaking regions of the previous Hyderabad princely state. Hyderabad, naturally became the capital as it was far better city than any other city in AP in terms of infrastructure. I want readers to look in Wikipedia on history of Hyderabad state and the atrocities of Nizam’s privateers – Razakars. It is a bloody tale which we used to listen with awe when it was narrated. While Sardar Vallabhai Patel was conducting the Operation Polo, two groups were helping the Union of India from inside – Andhra Mahasabha(later became Hyderabad State Congress) and Communist Party of India. After the Hyderabad state was annexed into Indian Union, the same two groups which were very influential during that time, raised a banner of “Visalandhra Movement” (meaning Expanded/Vast Andhra Movement) for the formation of United Andhra Pradesh. During this time, the political awareness of people of Telangana used to be very high. Unlike other regions, poets and intelligentsia’s influence over people used to be high those days. Finally the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed on 1st November 1956.
Post 1956, it was settling period. Mostly uneventful except that the trouble was brewing in the name of Mulki Revolt (first telangana agitation). Dr Chenna Reddy was one of the energetic, ambitious and young leaders with the eye on the chair of Chief Minister-ship. With all due respects, if at an age of 70 being a governor of TN, he could be thorn on the side of the then TN CM, JJ, imagine how he could have been in his 40s? He was instrumental in starting the agitation, splitting Congress(I) as Telangana Praja Samithi, won 12 of 14 seats in the Telangana districts, silently merged into Congress as Indira Gandhi was not keen in creating new states. So a gentlemen’s agreement was signed and TPS merged with Congress. Mrs. Gandhi chose P.V Narasimha Rao as CM instead of Dr Chenna Reddy. True to the then Indira Gandhi’s finicky political moves, she changed CMs every 3 years. When three leaders from Telangana became CMs, the leaders in Coastal Andhra lit the fire in Vizag for separate Andhra state in 1972-73. It was called Jai Andhra Movement. It was quite bloody and many a times, my parents told how they lost 2 years of their college due to the Jai Andhra movement. It was also suppressed. In a way for Mrs. Gandhi politically, these divisions were very handy as she could keep the bait of CM post and get things done in her favor. Apart from these, compared to the problems Union Government must be facing like Bangaladesh War etc, these regional aspirations are nothing. After that Emergency in 1975 and dreamy Janata Government which failed, kind of rest. Then came Dr. NTR. NT Rama Rao, the matnee idol of telugus shocked everyone by launching a political party, won a majority and became CM. His party manifesto based on Telugu pride, pro poor politics and his charishma created a new dream for the poor people. Many congress leaders moved to TDP. Also many new generation beurocrats, lawyers, doctors and some of his fan’s association folks also joined his party. For the next 18 years there is no talk of separatist movements. AP had major CPI(ML)/ Peoples War Group – Naxalites problem. Incidentally this naxal movement has lot of support from Anatapur(Arid), Warangal, Karimnagar, Khammam(coal mines), Adilabad, Godavari districts, Sreekakulam, Vizag (large adivasi population). Meanwhile state was electing either Congress or TDP in every election. TINA(There Is No Alternative) is very valid for AP. Both these parties got very good cadre and clout. In 1999, after Mr Chandra Babu Naidu’s TDP won the election, a relatively unknown politician, Dr K Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) did not get a ministerial berth. He was instead made deputy speaker. He resigned from TDP and formed the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) in the same lines of Jarkhand Mukti Morcha(JMM).
Here I would like to add my interactions with friends from Telangana. When I was studying my MCA at JNTU College of Engineering, Anantapur, our class of 30 used to have 33% from each region of AP. So, 10 of my classmates are from Telangana. We used to be very politically active and debating on various social, political issues ( as well as movies) in our mess hall. In my 2.5 years of spending with some of the closest friends – we never had any topic about Telangana state separation. In other words, the issue was non existent before TRS was formed in 2001. Entire focus was on IT, industrialization and development. In my next part, I will cover the situation from 2001 to current day crisis.
Vamsi,
This is a superb post. you have explained the background very well for people that are not that well-versed with the issue like me. I am of the view that smaller states are more easily managed and in the long term lead to better development. However, judging from the turmoil in AP in the past few weeks, i am not sure what i should be thinking?
Look forward to part 2.
Vamsi,
In spite of all the coverage this issue has been getting in the newspapers, this is the first time, that I actually got to read about it. Thanks for the very descriptive post; can’t wait to read Part-2 of this.
I always wonder what the Aam Aadmi has to say about this. It always seems that most of these decisions revolve around one person’s need to feel important, more than any other reason.
I’m told the US constitution allows states to secede. May be we should have included some such provision in our constitution too! Would that then apply to districts too!!! While smaller states may offer the potential for better governance, the tendency would be to include only that that are doing well – leaving the poorer regions to fend for themselves.
I shall await your narrations of the turn of events in this century!
Raghu
Wonderful post by someone who hails from the state in question. I have no business to get into whether Andra Pradesh must be one state or many states. I can only comment on what led to this (in my view).
First things first: The size and composition of a state (or division of a state) must be decided by the people who matter, not someone else who has no idea of the issues. This applies as much to AP, as it applies to any other state that exists, or is about to be created. if this is fixed, then it may not really matter how big or small a state is.
The cause of recent spate of incidents can be traced to 3 issues. These issues, if not fixed soon, can cause more turmoil, and can become a generic problem in many places of India, leave alone AP.
1. Constitutional responsibility being overshadowed by extra-constitutional authority. The decision to create a separate state was taken by someone who clearly was not the competent authority (The answer to the natural question “Who, then, is the authority?” is “the people of the state concerned”).
2. Lack of local leadership and authority. Until the late YSR Garu was CM, no one dared make such noises. Everyone concerned knew that YSR Garu would have handled this with solid authority – whether it was “Yes” or “No” to a separate state. After the tragic passing of YSR Garu, the CM did not have the full support of all concerned, and had to look up to the central leadership for everything.
3. Opportunism. This (in my humble opinion) is more of an outcome of 1 and 2 above. Both the groups for and against a separate state, moved in with full force, making the best use of the confusion.
In a bigger context, this can happen anywhere in India. If you take away the names of the state(s) and the tragic incident, this will look entirely familiar in several other parts of India.
The root cause of all this is (1) above. Even (2) above is a fallout of 1, and everything else follows. Jaago India Jaago!
Vamsi.. an extensive post with lot of details presented in an interesting and fluent way.. Very interesting till the last line.
I disagree with you on the following points.. (i may be wrong.. i am commenting from my own source of info)..
1. Telengana is the distinct region, which was forcefully merged with andhra.. So, the unity itself is an uneasy one.. This is like a unhappy marriage, where divorce is better than life together..
2. Even during times of integrating telengana, there was heavy opposition in the region, and Nehru seems to have merged telengana inspite of protests. The movement goes back to decades, even though TRS is encashing it now.
3. We have to understand the cultural diversities of the regions, and a centralised statehood will not fit among such diversity. The disparities seems to have taken place on regional lines, where people from telengana could not compete with other regions.
The following article by T.V.R shenoy provides a different perspective on the telengana issue.. the author asks, why people are afraid of smaller states..
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/dec/14/tvr-shenoy-asks-why-we-are-scared-of-small-states.htm
Vamsi,
There is a fundamental question to be asked based on telengana protests. What is the rationale behind linguistic division of states, where all other factors, like traditional administrative setup, regional culture, people groups etc are ignored. Is linguistic statehood legitimate?
Telengana issue has raised to demands from other regions. The bhundelkhand, gorkhaland, the sourashtra, etc. Whereas there were atleast 10 petitions for creation of new states pending with government, like mythilai, konkana etc. These all reflect that our administrative system doesnot reflect the people’s aspiractions, and infact was NOT in tune with the regional characteristics.
There needs a states re-organisation commitee to look in to hard realities..
My previous comment is not appearing
Hi Vamsi,
You have explained the background well. Initially I too was against Telangana precisely because of the reason that KCR was not a person who could be trusted to take Telangana to better places. But seeing the history of Telangana and the violated agreements like Gentleman’s agreement etc now I feel that the sentiment has always existed. Only problem was that there was no leader who could stand infront and unite these voices.
I support formation of separate Telangana for the following reasons.
1. Better Governance:Major reason is that smaller states are easily and better governed.
2. Diversion of Water I too studied in JNTU Anantapur and have seen the situation there first hand. I agree that it is an arid area because there are no rivers (Penna and Tungabhadra do flow in some regions of the district but the water is very less) But I somehow feel people in Anantapur are intellectually well off compared to Telangana people. Anyway Rayalaseema should not be compared to Telangana here as Seema is arid due to lack of rivers, whereas Telangana is arid inspite of major rivers Krishna and Godavari flowing through it. This is the main reason for the strong Telangana sentiment. People felt cheated.
3. Violation of guarantees and Agreements: The people who became CMs violated all the safeguards given to Telangana people after becoming the CM. The rule that deputy CM should be from Telangana if the CM is from Andhra was violated. G.O 610, which aimed at removing all the non-local employees, upheld by the Supreme Court is still pending. To be frank, I dont think we need to remove all non-locals in Telangana but the fact that it was agreed upon but violated makes Telangana people to lose trust in their counterparts. This breaking of promises is also another major reason for all out agitation.
But I have my apprehensions, mainly because of KCR. I feel that even if separate state is formed it should amalgamate all the existing settlers and allow them to lead their life freely. But with KCR making damning statements like ‘Telangana vale jaago, Andhra wale bhaago’ ( People of Telangana get up, Andhra people run), I think the issue is going to get complicated and I think that Centre to make sure that our fundamental right of being able to stay anywhere in India should be safeguarded.
And the fact that if people like KCR become the CM, what sort of growth can we expect?
But still I feel that breaking the state is beneficial in the long run. If not KCR, people after KCR might actually lead the state to greener places. The people of Telangana have lost faith that being united is in their interests. The people of Andhra might regret losing a metropolis like Hyderabad but in the long run they too can build a magnificent city. They might worry about getting water, which all this while they were enjoying the share of Telangana too. But what is not yours is bound to go sometime or the other and they will have to live with it. One incident which shows how Telangana people were discriminated was some scheme called Rajoli banda diversion scheme where some faction leaders from Rayalaseema blew out the dam sluices and the water is going into the KC canal which benefits rayalaseema. The government didn’t do anything much about this. With this environment created surely, Telangana people will be looking to use their share of water. Even the 1st SRC notes that separate states are better.
My point is that even if all these violations and other things are left out, it is better to divide the states as there will be better accountability. But I think this agression towards settlers is entirely uncalled for and KCR shouldn’t do that if he really is in the best interests of the people of Telangana.
Vamsi, is there any strong reason that there should be United Andhra except for the emotional fact that all Telugu speaking people should be together? I want the rational reasons where both people of Andhra and Telangana are benefitted.
Thanks,
Ananth.
Vamsi, thanks for the elaborate background especially the description of the geographical boundaries of the three distinct regions.
As you say telengana agitation was quite non existent before TRS.
Smaller states are no guarantee for progress. Division of states leads to creation of more posts for bureaucrats, more IAS officlals, higher overheads and the state budget will soon turn into a deficit in the first year itself.
A high percentage of revenue would go into maintenance rather than development it was originally intended for, moreover a state made up of a uniform linguistic demographic would be difficult to bifurcate and would lead to years of turmoil and mutual hatred leading to a much worse scenario.
It all boils down to development. If the governments ensure that growth is across all regions, I’m sure no one would be interested in fighting for a separate state. The underlying fact in most of the demands for separate states is lack of development and indifference shown by the governments to certain regions. While, having smaller states would definitely hlep in better governance, if the governments can focus on catering to all the regions in their states, I’m sure such demands wouldn’t arise at all.
Nice post indeed.. I personally believe REGIONALISM is one of the major factors of turmoil in our country and the people who suffer are common man. Bal Thackeray needs a separate identity for MUMBAI, a place where ONLY MAHARASHTRIANS, marathi manoos can stay. And, now, Telengana issue. I mean, why can’t we think of UNITED INDIA?? I disagree with Sukumar statement “Smaller states are more easily managed and in the long term lead to better development”. If that would have been the case, the north eastern states would have been developed but no wonder the refugee issues and basic problems like electricity and water have been a major concern in states like Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh etc..
Time and Again, Regionalism has been the major factor for LINGUISM and Communalism…I sometimes wonder, whether the diversity that exists in india is a boon or a curse?? And, truly, formation of states is not dividing the land but dividing the people…DIVIDE and RULE Policy was something that existed in the British era and Indian Politicians too follow the same..who gives a damn to better governance, good livelihood and welfare of common man???
/** Of these Adilabad is most underdeveloped and it has lots of adivasis. **/
I would like to challenge many of the existing assumptions among us. WHy do we always equate “Adivaasis” with “Underdevelopment” ?
Historically, the tribals or the “vanvasis” have their own administrative system, and a lifestyle in tune with nature. They have their own localilsed medical knowledge, their own form of nature worship, and even have a tribal chief. They have their own survival mechanism, according to their habitat.
But we often project them as under-developed, primitive, and hence we consider ourselves as the saviour of them, bringing in them development and other infrastructure, as we conceptualised. The britishers unsurped all the powers they had on their land and forest, and as a result, many of the tribals from assam to kerala fought against them.
But after independance, have we restored the freedom to those tribals? No.. Instead of britishers, the english educated elite indians started colonialising other native indian regions and societies.
And this makes me think .. “For whom actually the independance was? ”
/** Coastal Andhra has it’s own share of challenges because three districts – Prakasam, Srikakulam, Vijayanagaram are very backward comparable with Rayalaseema districts. Coming to Telangana – besides Hyderabad and it’s neighboring districts, other districts that are well developed are Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar and Mehbubnagar. The underdeveloped districts are Adilabad, Nalgonda, Nizambad and Medak.
**/
If those districts are underdeveloped, who is responsible for that? Are the people of that region responsible?
Development.. development.. development.. what exactly is it? Is it only flyovers, bridges, railways? WHy such extreme obsession with development.. and who is to decide what is needed for those people?
Do the people of the so called “Under developed region” given the freedom to develop themselves? Do those people have the freedom to bring in medical facilities, schools to their region?
the answer is a big “No..”.. and we often scream that they are underdeveloped..
Well written Vamsi. I look forward for part 2.
Smaller states means better administration is something that most people supporting the seperation cause argue, but they don’t seem to understand the problems that divisions would cause. If only the politicians had the will, a seperate and a smaller state is definitely not needed for development. The politicians of this country are destroying it every day and people should be careful.
Sukumar,
Thanks for your kind words. I am also confused whether the small states alone provide enough development. If we look into the state of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh etc the development indicators or the hung assemblies like Goa, it proves different. On the other hand, Pondicherry seems to be very stable. I am having two minds about this all the time.
Excellent Post Vamsi, Great informative and historical perspective. My opinion on this matter is, “create states to reflect the feeling of most of the people living in the region, too many variance with in people creates different opinions hence state’s development will curtail”. My stance on separating states is purely on development purpose, for example, to dig a well in my town, we have to get permission from Chennai Tamil Nadu water supply board which is 650km away from my home town, of course we can apply within my town but final permission comes from Chennai. Just imagine, how many cities, villages, towns we have and the work load of TN water supply department. During this process, our file would be lost, and our people dies here with out water. We can tell you 1 million stories about Tsunami aftermath, i don’t know due to distance or bureaucracy, it took days to TN government comes into picture, however within 30KM people got support within 1-2 hours in Kerala side because proximity from capital. The separating states become viable option for faster improvement, speedy recovery efforts and better governance. If i tell this to city bought up, he/she couldn’t fathom what i’m talking about. You gotta be away from capital maze and most backward development dist. from India and went through natural distress.
To form a United Andhra, Andhra people sacrificed so many things(in my opinion), they did some imbalance agreements and unwanted conditionals which really hurts over all Andhra’s growth. Moreover number of states and size of state doesn’t matter, at end of the day, we are all Indians and we can move freely anywhere with in India. I agree with you that Andhra is very complicated because at the independence it was ruled by so many kingdoms.
However our national leaders made a huge mistake that they choose to form states based on language rather than kingdoms. Even though, we are all speaking same language our thoughts and cultures mostly align with our kings. Here are the reasons why i believe kingdom based states are better option. Some Kings are religious conservatives, some are liberals, some are warriors, some are luxurious. The variety was there at the time of independence, India had a chance to create states based on people’s culture rather than external speaking language. But this is irrelevant to this post.
Raghu, thanks for your nice words.
Frankly Aam Admi view in the case of Telangana also might be changing. With the divisions caused by the recent turn of events, I believe a common man from Telangana might feel like preferring a separate state. But again it is today’s view. When emotions are running high, logic goes back and people act stupid.
Remember, US went through even civil war before their state-federal structure and union of countries became a single country. Like they say – US Civil War is an extension of their American Revolution. It’s all economics, resources and pride – at the end.
Hi Vamsi,
Excellent post and a sensitive one too. Many people agree that small is beautiful but the issue that we are witnessing now has more to do with real estate, political patronage, protecting one’s interests etc. The common man in Andhra yearns for a united AP but looks agreeable for bisecting the state. Certain vested interests who fear losing the political patronage (they need these because of vast investments at stake) have been the real thorn. Of course not everyone vying for a united AP can be categorized as a vested interest.
It is painful to see a state disintegrating especially when considering the fact that from being the poorest southern state to being a front runner for being the best investment friendly state, Andhra Pradesh has come a long way. They have some great visionaries and leaders (albeit muscle men) who had the acumen to develop the state. Imagine this – people were quiet when Bihar was split. Why the ruckus with AP? It may be because AP was a real underdog whose growth surprised many. Lots of people had given their best to make this happen. If these people were to see their investments, patronage wither away it is not going to be easy for them to take it lying down.
Unless there is a concrete commitment (a viable agreement) that protects the interests of these stakeholders (not the sinister ones), the fire will rage.
informative post. waiting for part 2
Giridharan Kesavan Thanks for your comments. I think, we have to understand the fact that a new state can be formed by the parliament using a bill. That means indirectly every single voting citizen is taking a decision. I think it makes lot of sense if the state creation is debated across the spectrum – what it means to the country rather than whether it is just Andhrites problem.
You pointed some very good root causes. Regarding 1), I think Congress or for that matter any other party has strong central leadership and internal democracy seem to be very minimum. For the last 6 years, every congressman sang a phrase “We will do whatever Madam decided”. When madam decided, common man did not like it in the coastal andhra, rayalaseema and hyderabad regions. So, we see it very soon snowballed into an avalanche.
You nailed it right. This can happen anywhere in the country.
Senthil, thanks for your kind words.
I see minor differences in cultures. Which is wonderful right. As long as other region people are respecting and peacefully coexisting – why would a new state be needed. Language is 100% same, (there are dialects which of course are there within telangana one for every 200 KMS). People look same, eat same food, respect each other, celebrate each others festivals, pray same Gods. I lived with roommates from Telanagana – not someone from city – from a rural areas. Absolutely no difference in anything.
Senthil,
I think state reorganization committe doesnt hurt. We have to look into hard facts before we take any decision. And all parties must be taken into confidence. It cannot be a one sided affair. Importantly it cannot be based on blackmail. Emotions have to come down when taking any such decision that affects 8 Crores people. It is not a joke.
Ananth, You raised some good points.
I think we have to start with some hard facts – the fact that Arid areas in AP doesnt need to be taken care of or left to their own is the kind of politics that brings down the whole logic. Our goal should be to get entire AP (and country) populace has to get basic facilities like water, food, shelter, education and health. Rayalaseema has rich mineral wealth, Telangana has water resources, developed city, airports, research institutes and top education institutions, Coastal areas have rich soil. With this combination – state can be developed fast and standard of living can be raised better than – just looking into one aspect and trying to grab that resource.
As you must be aware – unless you use much higher percentage of fertilizers (which is bad bad for earth), just with water you cannot get good yield. But in delta regions, where soil is naturally rich – you get better crop yield with monsoon support and some water. It doesnt make sense from my 10000 ft view.
Next reason is leverage – like it or not – in parliamentary system – more number of MP seats we have – we have better leverage in the center. Your vote has more weightage. Is that fair – nope. Did it work for the state’s benefit – yes. Check your stats for the last 13 years budget where AP one of the key states that is either directly or indirectly supporting the central government ( so is DMK). So who benefits – people of AP which includes everyone.
Finally – Andhra includes Telangana, Rayalaseema and Coastal andhras. Not just coastal andhrites. This is most abused usage in the recent years.
Shah Hameed – you nailed it down. If our MLA is committed, you can see wonders. Nobody demands this. Instead we get emotional thinking that having a separate state will solve all issues. We will have same representatives and they have an agenda which serves their purpose. I feel so sorry for even educated people falling for the same divisive politics instead of demanding what we deserve.
Brilliant post Vamsi,
Extremely informative and helpful for someone like me who had no knowledge of the background and history behind the issues. I am of the opinion that all these protests and the battle for a separate state are just for a few more people to make more money using this as a chance. After seeing how opportunistic the political moves have been in the past few weeks, you feel so sorry for a few people who are truly looking to seeing if a smaller state will result in economic and social development.
The powers to be have somehow opened the can of worms and no one has a clue now how to solve this problem without causing much havoc.
Well written, looking forward to the part -2
Kannan, your comments are sensible. Yes, you are right at this point of time the conditions are not very positive for any state formation. We should think about it when we have enough clarity on different sections interest. In particular aam-aadmi. Administrative over head will be very high. Contracters and realtors will be benefited. We can also see if investing in a new city – which may run into 1000s of crores of rupees can be repurposed to be spent on the much needed sectors like infrastructure, internal security or irrigation projects. We have to ‘think’ with vision and leadership, if we want to solve underdevelopment.
Srini, RK, Anil. Thanks for your comments. I am working on Part 2.
Rajesh – you are right. Sometimes smaller states may be a blessing if they are well contained with all resources. But for a complex state like AP, it may be a bane.
Prakash – you made excellent points. I am of similar opinion. Interests of all stakeholders are to be protected. I do not believe in sacrifices because of some vision. We are looking at hard investments, bonds and roots that have taken place in the places like Hyderabad. People need a credible leader to lay out a blue print on how the split is made, if at all it has to be made. And Hyderabad, of course. It did not become what it became because of just outside investments. People from across the state made investments. Now if some imbalanced leaders in the urge to grab power wants to take some decisions, it should not be allowed.
Vamsi,
setting up Second state reorganisation commitee is being considered now.. Even though time consuming, a good move towards stability and prosperity of india..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Centre-may-set-up-second-SRC-to-settle-statehood-demands/articleshow/5375592.cms
Vamshi,
Telangana, for some reason has blown up to proportions beyond all nightmares. I’ve been a victim of this violence myself – got stuck up in the melee that ensued one evening when rumours floated that KCR expired.
Now, coming to the issue in itself. Frankly, I don’t understand why there is such a hue and cry over the entire so called ‘suppression’ of the Telangana region. As far as I’ve seen this region, having stayed in Kazipet (Warangal dt) for a year and Hyderabad for 13, frankly I couldn’t find any place where Telangana was suppressed, atleast nothing different from the other parts of the nation. One region is naturaly endowed with resources, the other isn’t, naturally the more endowed region does tend to prosper. The same is the case with Telangana vs Andhra.
Going by the same yardstick, Telangana, atleast pats of it is far more prosperous than Rayalaseema as a whole. Now if Telangana is to be separated going by this economic factors, Rayalaseema should’ve been coupled with BIMARU.
And cultural, strange. Telugu as a whole is a wonderful language, the culture – of the highest order. Now if these people call for a state based on the differences intheir culture, its again a hogwash. Andhra Pradesh is all the same, minor variations exist everywhere – just that the onus is on the public to take it all in their own stride and walk ahead.
Also, looking at the implications of a state forming – Andhra Pradesh’s two biggest dams – Nagarjuna Sagar and Srisailam, both are in Telangana- the most fertile land is in the KG basin – Coastal. We already have water disputes in the country – Mullaperiyar and KRS are only two of them. Do we need any more of these?
Vamsi – Wonderful post. Very well written. Waiting eagerly for Part 2.
Excellant Post Vamsi.It is sad that Andhra burns due to the whims and fancies of few politicians.
United Andhra is fine but as u rightly put it only if development is idespread and not just in Coastal Andhra,Hyderabad and Tirupathi.If a government can do that we dont need a seperate state.
The second thing is that what do the people of Telengana ( not the politicians alone )want/need .We cannot have an United Andhra based on the opinion of Coastal Andhra alone and we need to consider the wishes of Telegana and for that matter the even Rayalseema .Since we live in a democarcy why cant we have a plebiscite in Telengana,, ultimately those people are going to be affected by formation of the state why dont we let them decide.
I have lived in Vizag for 2 years and have always felt that Coastal Andhra people seem to bulldoze the Telegana folks(I could be wrong here) .
On a different note, Potti Sreeramulu remains just a memory now.I am not sure how many people are aware of his sacrifice.People like KCR have abused his memory for creating this kind of drama .Infact the house in Mylapore where Sreeramulu dies is poorely maintained .
vamc, your narration on Telangana,Rayalaseema,Costal Andhra is very good and thought provoking expecting your part-2 on this valid subject very soon and I hope this holidays will support your thoughts. All other readers comments and suggesstions and advises are good and intresting. will it be possible to explain about settlers.
venkat
Vamsi,
The back ground of the present state formation and the hystory of Hyderabad is explained nicely.Very valid points
Eagerly waiting for part -2.
p.s.kumari
Vamsi,
regarding development of state, i would say, telengana alone will not help in state’s development. Rather, we need a reformed and decentralised administrative system, so that people in a particular locality have the power and system to develop their own area. In the present system, the people’s collective ownership on an area is denied, and that everything is centralised.
I would like to quote two examples of tamilnadu.
1. In my own village:
————————
Few months back, due to construction of a bridge in the nearby State Highway, all vehicles were diverted via our village. The roads could not withstand such a heavy traffic, and all the houses along the road are severely affected. The traffic was oneway through our village, but vehicle travelled from both sides. Few youths tried to enforce atleast one way traffic to reduce congestion, but there was heavy pressure from some party quarters.
Added to that, there was another bridge construction started in our village road, and vehicles have now to pass through rough mud road for around half-a kilometer.
The panchayat leader do not have the power and funds to repair the road, as it belongs to highways dept. The department officials also did nothing. The whole village was taken for granted. Not only ours.. but all those villages lying on this road has to witness extreme noise and dust 24 hrs.
If there were a localised administrative system, the villagers could have repaired the road themselves.
2. Tiruppur Water Pollution:
———————————–
The entire business community in tiruppur was ready to share a part of the cost in solving pollution problems. But the state government did nothing towards that. As a result, the entire noyyal river was heavily polluted which affects thousands of acres in the downstream villages. No one could solve this problem because all the powers were vested with the state government, which is headed by people from a different region (Tanjore). If there was a localised administrative system, the tiruppur and coimbatore people would have developed their area well.
Now, as we often quote development as reason for anything, i would ask.. “Development for whom, in the case of tiruppur”.. Few hundred textile owners, had destroyed the livelihood of lakhs of village people in the entire downstream of noyyal.
Extending the same to andhra, development for whom?
I read in another article, that the dialect spoken in telengana were often ridiculed by the andhraties, and it was said, the telengana culture was denigrated in the films, through comedy dialog. (I dont know how far it is true)..
Telengana alone may not gaurantee prosperity of the region, but separate telengana would give powers to the people of that region.
Infact, i wish breaking up of andhra in to 4 regions – telengana, royaseelama, coastal and the main andhra. either as a separate state or, a regions within andhra with some amount of autonomous powers like education, healthcare to be taken care of by themselves intead of the centralised state govt.
The government may not be responsive. But its hightime that the intellectuals start reviewing the current beurocratic and administrative setup with skepticism. Are we ready for that?
Sundara, Thanks for your comments. I don’t think it is completely a fight without any cause. There is a development angle. But my only anguish is even if half of this fight is put into the development, it would be a different scene. I think people dream that state bifurication will solve all issues. That will benefit only politicians.
Srinivas, you made excellent points. Thank you. New state means more water disputes. Also it will become a land locked state. Certainly a disadvantage.
Thank you Mummy and Daddy for visiting this blog and offering your comments.
Senthil, Decentralized power is surely one of the solutions. Comedy characters in film – Certain Telugu accents are used which includes Godavari District accents, Srikakulam Accent, Kurnool Accent, Nellore Accent and also Telangana Accent. This is too trivial reason to form state. Movie makers make comedy out of anything that looks different.
Priya, Thanks for your comments. Part 2 just went live.
Karthik,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you 100%. State formation should be based on the consensus. A non-issue due to historical backwardness cannot be same as exploitation by other regions. It is purely a divisionary tactic by the politicians. Even if half of the same energy that is spent on the T-movement is put on demand for better development, one can see wonders. If KCR fasts for Water/ Schools/ Health/ Roads or some other coastal andhra politician resigns for lack of development, I will wholeheartedly support the same. No politician will do that. Is that not enough cue to understand what this is all about?
We need to understand how Telanganites are exploited by the village landlords. One of my friends from a village near Bhuvanagiri joined Engineering. He is from backward class. He has to move to the side of the road even as late as 1997 in his village when “Dora” meets him. And the same “Doras” say this is all because of Coastal Andhra folks? It is pure B.S.
Yes Vamsi,
I do see your logic now. Thanks for the informative post. I all boils down to the MPs. But somehow there is a emotional angle that they have been cheated by others, but the sad fact is that it is their own MLAs and MPs who have cheated them. Hope poeple understand this and start questioning their MPs and MLAs for being accountable to their being elected.