Grave Danger of a Maoist revival in the Telangana region if a separate State is created!

Wilful Blindness 

By Ajai Sahni
Editor SAIR; Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management & South Asia Terrorism Portal.
Courtesy: the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal. 

Extract

"There is a grave and imminent danger of a Maoist revival in the Telangana region if a separate State is

created there. Indeed, the increasing chaos of the Telangana agitation has already created new spaces

for Maoist revival and consolidation, though the operation of armed cadres is still being effectively

contained by the Police. The rising apprehensions and potential backlash in the coastal Andhra and

Rayalaseema regions can only widen such spaces. The Maoist leadership and cadres from this State

have played – and continue to play – a historically pivotal role in the armed insurrection across all

affected areas of the country. A Maoist revival in Andhra Pradesh will not only wipe out hard-won gains

in Telangana and in the wider State; it would have disastrous consequences for the Maoist ‘red

corridor’ States, and for the internal security situation in India at large"

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/sair10/10_1.htm#assessment1

Division of Andhra Pradesh: National interest should override sectional interest

Excellent article in The Hindu on why the UPA govt has no rationale to proceed with division of the state and why the current approach is harmful to the state and the country:

"India can ill-afford expenditures on bureaucratic infrastructure and new capitals, as against the 

requirements of increasing food production"

"If new States increase insecurity and threaten national security and integration, what is the rationale for creating them?"

By Ravi Komarraju

Serious national policies need serious, critical and rational thinking. Crowds and political pressure, ad hoc gains and myopia can destroy carefully nurtured systems. The unseemly haste in trying to push through a division process of Andhra Pradesh hides more than it reveals. This was not how States were formed earlier. As for the States Reorganisation Commission, clear guidelines were laid out for the formation of states. Yes, the issue has been hanging fire for a few years. Yet, the way it has been handled smacks of Machiavellian manoeuvrings. When Andhra Pradesh was formed, leaders from different regions sat down to discuss and solve disputes. This has not been properly attempted now.

Supposedly open agreements have not been openly arrived at. A centrally brokered opinion was sought to be created. It was like growing an artificial organ around a pre-designed matrix. Free suppression of opinion was not tolerated in some places. People talked under duress. Intellectuals were silenced by threats. This was the case in the 1969 Telangana and the 1972 Andhra agitations. This is usually the aetiology of any hysterical mass movement. So, fake saints prod on people, calling for unleashing ‘the dogs of war’.

The problem has become a tangled web; will the decision be unnecessarily hastened? It moved on to a fast track without serious thought or expert deliberations. It looked as if the Group of Ministers was given a tailoring job to be finished in a month’s time. Even stitching a coat to a design takes longer. Water disputes, for example, require specified study by experts, engineers, hydrologists, environmentalists, etc. The division of the High Court implies redistribution of lakhs of pending civil and criminal cases, which definitely is bound to delay justice. Pension problems are dime a dozen with several government and autonomous government organisations requiring division too. The general populace is bound to suffer. Service problems would mutate into court cases requiring legal solution. The recent Supreme Court directive to Bihar and Jharkhand on salaries of some employees not being paid for several years is a pointer. While politicians and partisan interests can brush aside these things, they are definitely not minor issues. If these are not addressed properly, what is governance for? If waters get divided, revenue goes down, politically, both probable States get weaker and the riverine deltas get damaged threatening food security and pushing up food prices, why opt for it? If new states increase insecurity and threaten national security and integration, what is the rationale for creating them without a serious parliamentary debate on the requirement or without a new States Reorganisation Commission? You have to work out abscissio infiniti for a solution. The present exercise is hopelessly inadequate.

The peculiarity of the situation emanates from the almost callous, ad hoc and visionless short-sightedness of the Congress think tank. They have landed themselves in the proverbial “monkey’s tail in the wedge” situation of their own making. The party has to rethink its national policies — whether to go in for more states or not. It is time that all national parties rework their policies on the issue of new states and the process to be adopted. A nation cannot be kept in a labour room to deliver states on demand, long past its age of conception. Developmental and human aspects of progress need attention and nurturing. India cannot and should not remain a stone pelting, hate-mongering, petty politicking nation, if it has to move forward. That kinetic energy cannot be wasted; it should address the bigger issue of hunger, poverty and illiteracy and gender discrimination among other such pressing human problems.

It is morally and electorally improper and wrong to divide a state before elections. It goes against all tenets of a free and fair election. The Srikrishna Report should have been elaborately discussed in Parliament. It should be at some point of time. Demonstrations and crowds should not be the deciders of policy in a democratic system. Electoral outcomes or provisions for constitutional procedures like a referendum alone should decide policy on crucial issues like a state’s division.
The way the entire process was handled looks synthetic and artificial, almost a mockery of all democratic procedures. It is evident that a lot of hectoring was involved. The so-called core committee has none who represent the two disputants or protagonists. It does not even have the semblance of an honest broker. The members are drawn from all the other South Indian States, competing for industry, investment and river waters.

Some represent the upper-riparian river areas with vested interests. Since the talk of division, thousands of crores of rupees of investment has moved out from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. Andhra Pradesh Ministers queue up before New Delhi to present their cases. The Antony Committee has turned into a farce. None of the members ever visited the different regions of the State. It looks like a Hamletian mock play; like a royal court with the defendant absent. This is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister’s decision to not visit Sri Lanka, when Mr. Chidambaram protested. It hurts you bad and hurts you deep.

Legal hurdles

The court battle has not yet started. But it will. There are legal hurdles, not just Article 371D and E. There are procedural hurdles. Even if they can be overcome, the division cannot happen before the elections. There is absolutely no need for such a hurried caesarean. People on both sides are fed up. Fed up with politics and politicians. The 2014 election may throw up a strange mix of results. The Congress may or may not remain divided. Some parties may fade away. Some leaders will vanish too.
In an undivided state, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) may turn into a Shiv Sena lookalike. The scenario is unpredictable now. But elections are the only democratic way to solve this issue. You either accept the Constitution and democracy, or you stay out of it.

Only through another States Reorganisation Commission constituted by Parliament should States be divided. National interests should override sectional and subregional interests. India can ill-afford expenditures on bureaucratic infrastructure and new capitals, as against the intense requirements of increasing food production and increasing water storage through environment-friendly methodologies. Creating new states is an ad hoc way of tackling unemployment or hunger or improving education or science and technology.

There have been apprehensions whether all this is to weaken the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution and whether this is to ensure that only some States have an edge over who rules from New Delhi. It is time that these misgivings and doubts were dispelled and democratic procedures and national integrity upheld.
 
(Ravi Komarraju is emeritus professor, Andhra University)

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/national-interest-should-override-sectional-interest/article5401849.ece
 

Sharad Pawar supports Samaikyandhra?

After being a staunch supporter of the creation of the Telangana state, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar appears to have softened his stance after meeting the YSR Congress chief Jaganmohan Reddy on Monday. 

The NCP is a key ally of the UPA government. 

 

“The NCP has supported Telangana for nine years but Mr. Reddy has raised important issues. He pointed out that the views of the State legislature should be considered on the bifurcation ,” Mr. Pawar said. 

I am not in a position to take a view now but I will place this before the party’s working committee,” he added. 

On whether his change in stance would embarrass the Centre on the issue, Mr. Pawar said, “Dialogue is very important in a democracy. The other side should be given a chance to explain itself.”

In the past, Mr. Pawar attended the Telangana Rashtra Samiti’s rally in Telangana. Among the UPA allies, he was one of those who pushed for an early resolution on the issue. Mr. Pawar clarified that his meeting with Mr. Reddy had no connection with a change in political affiliations. “There has been a lot of speculation on this, but this is not the case,” he said. 

Mr. Reddy is meeting political leaders across the country campaigning against the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. “Demands for the bifurcation of States should be backed by a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly concerned and Parliament,” Mr. Reddy said. Later in the day, he called on Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pawar-softens-stance-after-meeting-jagan/article5390317.ece

#BreakingNews: Leaked: Top secret #Telangana Bill Draft, must read! #samaikyandhra

CONFIDENTIAL 

 

DRAFT

Telangana Bill

AUTHORS: 

1. Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister of Home Affairs

2. Digvijay Singh, General Secretary, AICC

3. A K Antony, Minister for Defence

4. Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Rural Development

5. Sonia Gandhi, President, AICC

....Continued

PAGE 1

(Shindeji says: Check with Antonyji)

...

...

...

....Continued 

 Page 2

 (Antonyji says: Check with Digvijayji)

...

...

...

 ....Continued

Page3

 

(Digvijayji says: Check with Jairam Rameshji)

...

...

...

....Continued 

Page 4

(Jairam Rameshji says: Check with Soniaji)

...

...

...

....Continued 

Page 5

(Soniaji says: Check with Shindeji)

...

...

...

(Additional Notes by Soniaji: 

TELANGANA BILL TO BE COMPLETED IN 2014....OR BETTER TO POSTPONE IT TO 2050?)

CC to Mr.Nonsense....err....Rahul Gandhi

THE END

Interview with Parakala Prabhakar garu

Telugu people's unity will prevail

Pls sign #Petition to #Prez Pranab Mukherji

Pls sign #Petition to #Prez Pranab Mukherji:
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/the-president-of-india-pl-restrain-the-government-of-india-from-dividing-andhra-pradesh-the-state-of-the-telugu-people #samaikyandhra #RIPCongress

BJP Should Tell Us What They Achieved By Creating New States Like Jharkhand

Here are the 'achievements' of Jharkhand in the last 13 years:

Political Stability: 9 Chief Ministers in 13 Years (Picture above is self explanatory!)

 

Corruption: Gone through the roof (Ex-CM Madhu Koda, in above picture, in jail for three and half years)

Source:

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/corruption-instability-mark-10-years-of-jharkhand-1541377.html

 

Security: Became worse after new state was formed, naxalites/maoists have become stronger. Frequent attacks on people. 10 major incidents since 2005.

Source:

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/06/13/10-major-maoist-attacks-since-2005-82083.html

 

GDP: Bihar has better figures than Jharkhand in the last 10 years. Bihar has witnessed 13.13 percent GSDP growth over the previous year during 2011-12 while Jharkhand has grown by only 6.57 per cent. 

Source:

http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/do-new-states-perform-better/22/47995/

Conclusion: 

• It's not the size of the state that matters, it's the quality of governance that matters! 
• How is it that small states like Manipur and Mizoram are not at the top of social or economic indicators? 
• Bigger states like Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (even Andhra Pradesh) have developed well due to better governance. 
• What is needed is effective administration and focus on overall development of state.

Political, not peoples', interests the only decisive factor in Andhra Pradesh division; #Telangana #Samaikyandhra

By TSR Subramanian

(Originally appeared in The New Indian Express)

After dithering for many years, the Union Cabinet has made an announcement recently that Andhra Pradesh will be split into two—Telangana and Seemandhra. Andhra was created in the early 1950s and soon thereafter the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) had proposed a formula, formally accepted by the then government, specifying language as the criterion for future division of states.

Telugu is the language of about 14 crore Indian citizens; Andhra Pradesh could be termed the 14th largest ‘country’ in the world. When such a large part of India is to be split, and when the separation is to be between people who speak the same language and share the same culture, one would expect a much greater degree of preparation, prior consultation among all interests, and a broad agreement on the major contours of the implementation. It is astonishing that the final decision clearly was the result of a sudden spurt of ‘inspiration’—there was as much preparation as in cutting a large birthday cake. Indeed, the conclusion is inescapable that the main consideration related to a crude and cynical assessment of the number of MPs that the ruling party in Delhi could garner from the bifurcation.

Ultimately, such a major decision, affecting crores of Indians, is triggered by prospects of minor parliamentary benefit to the ruling party—the concerns, impact, and consequences for such a large state, sharing the same language, clearly were callously not taken into account.
A child would have predicted that the question of the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra would loom large as one requiring a broad prior consensus. We note that Hyderabad is more than 150 km north of the proposed Seemandhra border; most of Seemandhra/Rayalaseema citizens would have to go through a long road ‘corridor’ to go to the state capital—the implications of this had not been thought through. As an alternative, a new capital at Vijayawada or elsewhere in Seemandhra was not mooted in advance to build a consensus. Indeed, even the contours of the proposed Seemandhra, in effect bifurcating Rayalaseema (part to join Telangana and the rest to be with Andhra), was finalised after some changes —not based on any local population parameters or other requirements, but simply on a crude electoral estimation of potential benefit in the form of MP seats to the ruling party in Delhi—how much more callous and cruel can the administration be?

Even now it is not clear whether the Andhra Assembly will approve of the proposal to divide the Pradesh; it is not clear whether the Centre will overrule any adverse decision. Is it fair and proper to leave such major issues hanging in the air, while announcing the dismemberment of a large state, breaking up the Telugu peoples, based on short-term considerations of the Centre? Note that the creation of Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh), Jharkhand (from Bihar) and Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh) was done after considering all aspects, getting the opinion of the people concerned in the proposed new states (as well as the ‘rump’), with a clear picture of where the new capital will be. Would Uttarakhand have accepted Lucknow as its capital? Or Jharkhand agreed to split Patna as joint capital with Bihar—likewise in Madhya Pradesh? It is astonishing how the issue of respective capitals of proposed Telangana and Seemandhra could be dealt with in such a cavalier manner.

Empirically, there is no evidence that smaller or bigger states are more conducive for better administration; much like the productivity of large or small farms is size-neutral—the decisive factor is the quality of management. Besides it is not the wisest thing to embark on divisions of states without pre-specifying the principles; in this case, the cart has been placed before the horse, in the sense that a second SRC could have been established to delineate the parameters. The present decision will sooner or later trigger new demands in West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra among others, with equal or greater logic—one presumes that with the crass momentary-benefit approach by the Centre, these also will get decided based on the perceived benefits (i.e. one or two MPs this way or the other) to the ruling party. How unprincipled can governance be?

The Indo-Pak (now Bangladesh) border was settled in the course of two days by a surveyor, who essentially took a map and drew a line across it. That was the time when this issue had to be settled in a terrible hurry, as the Indian independence had been agreed upon. In the Andhra case, the Centre fiddled its thumb for 15 years before delineating the border in the course of two days, much like the British surveyor did during Partition in 1947— clearly, the emergency this time related to the impending 2014 elections. Imagine if there were a scramble at that time as to whether the East Pakistan capital should also have been located at Kolkata, then known as Calcutta—the dispute for Hyderabad as capital is of a similar nature. This piece is not expressing an opinion on whether Andhra should be divided or not; it is only a lament that expediency, short-term political interest of Delhi are the decisive factors—the Telugu-speaking peoples’ interests are not relevant.

http://newindianexpress.com/magazine/voices/Political-not-peoples-interests-the-only-decisive-factor-in-Andhra-division/2013/11/10/article1877969.ece

About the author: TSR Subramanian is a former cabinet secretary & IAS Officer 

Was it necessary to divide #Andhra Pradesh? By Kuldip Nayar #Samaikyandhra #Telangana

By Kuldip Nayar  

Apparently, Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who okayed the creation of Telangana for formal decision by the cabinet, did not anticipate angry reaction of the rest of Andhra, called Seemandhra. When there is blackout, no water supply, no transport, no fuel and powerless mobiles, the mood in Seemandhra is that of now or never.

The centre could have gauged the sentiment by proceeding with what the constitution says. It is laid down that the state assembly should be consulted. True, in the house of 294, the Seemabdhra’s 179 members would have stalled a resolution on the creation of Telangana. But then the constitution says that there should be consultation, not concurrence.

The exercise would have enabled to foresee the extent of aggressiveness which even intelligence agencies failed to report. Probably, the anger in Telangana was no less when it was up in arms. Yet the centre had resisted the state’s bifurcation although the agitation was at its fiercest during the days of Chenna Reddy, once the state’s chief minister. Then the Congress president, K. Kamaraj, from the south had his ears to the ground. Sonia Gandhi, sitting at New Delhi, is not familiar with the ground realities of the state.

Was it necessary to divide Andhra Pradesh? This was the first linguistic state. The States’ Reorganization Commission that followed the creation of Andhra Pradesh recommended the creation of Telangana. Yet the centre stuck to a united Andhra Pradesh in the larger interest.

The Telugus enthusiastically welcomed the creation of Andhra Pradesh because the Telugu-speaking areas were retrieved from the Madras Presidency and amalgamated with Andhra Pradesh. The question that remains unanswered is why so much hostility has come to surface when Telangana is constituted.

After all, it is going to be part of India. Ambitious politicians are responsible for cultivating hostility. There can be fear that Telangana is more or less the old state of Nizam where razakars (armed men) were ruling the roost. But the state is strong enough to curb such a tendency. Also the Nizams encouraged razakars and dreamt of joining Pakistan.

Politicians eye the loaves of office that a new state would create. That greed may be the reason why state chief minister Kiran Kumar Reddy has not resigned even when he is for a united Andhra Pradesh. Had he resigned it would have come as a jolt to the Congress high command and probably things would have taken a different turn.

Indeed, the Congress has in mind the next elections where it expects to sweep Telangana. It is tragic that politics has held its sway over the interest of the people of Andhra Pradesh. Its bifurcation would create problems for both the states like water disputes because River Krishna flows into both the proposed states. It is still not late to annul the decision.

Probably, the services of Congress-vice-president Rahul Gandhi would have to be harnessed. If he could undo the ordinance to shield the convicted politicians and force the union cabinet to rescind its decision he would be able to undo the division of Andhra Pradesh as well. Indeed, it was ridiculous to introduce in parliament a bill to overcome a Supreme Court judgment that the MPs and MLAs will cease to be members of the respective houses and disqualified the moment they are convicted.

The bone of contention between Telangana and Seemandhra is Hyderabad. The proposed bifurcation will have Hyderabad as their joint capital for 10 years. Why not permanently? When Punjab was divided, it was announced that both Punjab and Haryana would have separate capitals and Chandigarh would be a union territory. The two states found that a joint capital was useful and convenient. So much so, the lawyers of both the states opposed to the centre’s proposal to have a separate high court in Haryana. The proposal had to be withdrawn.

The argument that Seemandhra does not touch the border of Telangana where Hyderabad is located is not convincing. Both states open in the other states. All belong to the Indian nation. Why then the opposition to have Hyderabad as the joint capital? It is, however, unfortunate that government servants of the proposed Telangana have threatened that Seemandhra’s government servants must have their own setup in Hyderabad itself. Such tendencies must be curbed with a strong hand because they impinge on the country’s unity.

The centre has also closed its eyes on the renewal of demand for the creation of other states. Vidarbha, Gorkahaland and some other states in the northeast have again begun agitating after the announcement of Telangana. The state governments are helpless when the centre announces Telangana without bothering about repercussions.

It is not understandable why New Delhi has created another problem when it is already reeling under deteriorating economic conditions on the one hand and uneasy burdens with China and Pakistan on the other. Maybe, the announcement of Telangana is meant to divert attention from other pressing problems the country is facing today. This is perhaps the Congress way of tackling them.

The government has done well in resisting the demand for the appointment of another States Reorganization Commission. It would have opened a Pandora’s Box. I recall the passions aroused when the commission was appointed. There were so many claims which were equally conflicting that it was difficult to arrive at any decision which ultimately the commission made.

The commission made two points as far back as in 1985 when it submitted its report. Both points are as truer today as they were then. One, whether the states are reorganized or not they will continue to be an integral part of the Union which is the real political entity and the basis of our nationhood. Two, the constitution recognizes citizenship for the entire people of India, with equal rights and opportunities throughout the union. The proposed state of Telangana is, no doubt, a wrong decision. Yet the 28th state, if constituted, will keep in mind that the citizenship is one, with equal rights.

Kuldip Nayar is a veteran journalist, human rights activist and a noted author.

Originally appeared in:
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/10/20/comment/the-vexatious-issue-of-telangana/

A tale of two states: 'Happy Birthday #Andhra Pradesh' has a sad tinge today #samaikyandhra #telangana

By T S Sudhir, Editor (South India) at TV Today

'Happy Birthday Andhra Pradesh' has a sad tinge to it today. For this November 1 could well be the last Andhra Pradesh Formation Day that the state is celebrating in its present form. If the Congress has its way, by December, the state would be cut into two to create a new state of Telangana with ten districts while the remaining 13 districts would continue to call themselves Andhra Pradesh.

In 1956, Andhra Pradesh was the first state to be formed on linguistic basis. In 2013, that will fade into history.

By all accounts it has been a messy divorce, with court proceedings (read appeals in the Delhi Durbar by people from Andhra Pradesh) virulent, emotional and ugly. That is because people from the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions think they have been given a raw deal. They believe both in the short term and long term, the new Andhra Pradesh or Seemandhra is going to be unviable. A flop state, condemned to doom, from day one.

"Telugu speaking people will lose both politically and economically in a big way. But then if that is a choice that the Telugu speaking people have made consciously, they you cannot complain about it,'' rues Jayaprakash Narayan, President of the Loksatta Party. Narayan who is an MLA from Hyderabad city, is in favour of Telangana but objects to the manner in which the state is being bifurcated.

Interestingly, that it has been a case of 'winner takes all' is a sentiment shared even by Telangana politicians in private. They gloat that they have successfully managed to convince the powers-that-be in Delhi that the "historical mistakes of the past" should be corrected by being overgenerous to Telangana.

Andhra Pradesh sends 42 MPs to the Lok Sabha, the highest in south India. Since 1996, this contingent has played a central role in governments at the Centre, be it the Telugu Desam in 1996, 1998 and 1999 or the Congress in 2004 and 2009. Now Telangana state with 17 MPs and Seemandhra state with 25 MPs, will find their political clout considerably reduced.

"Size matters," points out D A Somayajulu, former Economic Affairs Advisor to Andhra Pradesh government and now a leader with the YSR Congress. "Now we are going to lose this size. So no one will take you seriously. Does anyone take Mizoram seriously the way they take a big state like Andhra Pradesh. They wont.''

But reduced political clout is not the only reason why many feel that it is a lose-lose situation for both states. People of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema are ruing that since Hyderabad will longer be their state capital, it will take away the magnetic power the state had to attract investors.

"Any division will have its advantages and disadvantages. For the people of Seemandhra, losing a capital city like Hyderabad, a city that has been developed over decades is a loss. They cannot replicate even if they are given 2 or 3 lakh crores. That kind of money can create infrastructure but it cannot create an economy,'' says K Nageshwar, political analyst.

Somayajulu argues that the administrators of Andhra Pradesh erred by putting all the goodies in the Hyderabad basket as a result of which there is a world of difference between the the state capital and other cities in the state.

"In 2012-13, Andhra Pradesh had a software turnover of 55000 crores out of which Rs.54800 crores was from Hyderabad. Which means 99.9% is from Hyderabad. This means the engine of economic growth is in Hyderabad while the rest of Andhra Pradesh will have only compartments with no engine. That too at a time when agriculture constitutes just 15-16 per cent of GDP. So you cannot have 84 per cent on one side and 16 per cent on the other. Not the best way to divide a state," he says.

According to the Andhra Pradesh finance ministry, Hyderabad accounts for 70 per cent of Andhra Pradesh's tax revenues. In 2012-13, of the state's revenues of 69146 crore rupees, Rs.48400 crore came from Hyderabad and its neighbouring Ranga Reddy district. The revenue from rest of Telangana was Rs.6206 crore, coastal Andhra Rs.10729 crore and Rayalaseema Rs.3809 crores.

However the Justice Srikrishna committee which studied the situation in Andhra Pradesh, believed that Hyderabad as the bone of contention is over hyped. In its 505 page report submitted in January 2011, it said this about economic viability : "Telangana as a new state can sustain itself both with and without Hyderabad. The other combination of regions - coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema - together can also sustain themselves as a state; in fact they can sustain themselves separately.''

The committee's report pointed out that the Telangana region (excluding Hyderabad) ranks 15th in the list of 28 states in terms of absolute GDP. Including Hyderabad, its rank moves up to 13th place. Interestingly, coastal Andhra ranks 13th too in terms of GDP. The laggard is Rayalaseema, whose per capita income is below the all-India average.

Former director of Centre for Public Policy and a votary of Telangana, Dr Gautam Pingle therefore believes that this fear of Seemandhra being a Bimaru state is just not true. "If they are bimaru, we are also bimaru. We are in fact worse off. They have capital, entrepreneurship. For last 150 years, they had 2 million acres under both the deltas, thanks to the Brits,'' says Dr Pingle.

However, that has not prevented the battle for a united Andhra Pradesh from becoming a battle to retain control over Hyderabad, some way or the other. Votaries of status quo argue that it is because they are also interested in Hyderabad's prosperity. Being made the capital of a Telangana state, they argue, is killing Brand Hyderabad.

"If it were not to be the capital of a large state like AP, and be just be an erstwhile princely state like Mysore, Junagadh or Gwalior, it would have deteriorated and degenerated. But because it became the capital of a large prosperous state with two deltas, long coastline, minerals, Hyderabad prospered. Now if it were to become the capital of a state with just 17 Lok Sabha seats and not much economic activity in the hinterland of Hyderabad, then Hyderabad will be lost even before the next 10 years. It will be an insignificant metropolis,'' argues Parakala Prabhakar, a votary of united Andhra Pradesh.

However, Telangana activists say that it is time Seemandhra moved on, instead of crying hoarse that all is lost by losing Hyderabad.

"If we took the same view, we would go to Bangalore ten years ago. Because ten years ago, Hyderabad was not an IT hub, Bangalore was. So you have to start somewhere. If you want to present yourself as a location that is favourable and profitable, there is no point saying, we lost Hyderabad," says Pingle.

But Hyderabad is only one part of the issue in this tale of two states. The region whose concerns are being ignored the most in this entire division debate is Rayalaseema, which for all practical purposes, is even more backward than Telangana. Not everyone is confident that the two regions of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema will continue as one state for too long. They point out that culturally and in terms of prosperity and work ethic, people from the two regions are very different. The apprehension is that Rayalaseema will be seen by people of coastal Andhra as a burden, almost like poor cousins. Especially since the region does not have the kind of resource base that coastal Andhra has.

"Rayalaseema's concerns and future are far more important than Hyderabad. Far too many people are focusing on Hyderabad. But we are ignoring central issue of 16 million people. They are most backward districts of India. There is a genuine sense of being orphaned. If we do not address that, we are not really finding a solution,'' says Jayaprakash Narayan.

Which is why there is almost a consensus that Rayalaseema that consists of four districts may want to break away from coastal Andhra, sooner than later. That a trifurcation of present-day Andhra Pradesh will most certainly take place.

G Omkarnath, Professor of Economics at Hyderabad Central University sees an unviability in terms of Seemandhra surviving as one unit. "There would soon be forces who would play up in Rayalaseema. The same forces who came in Telangana will say look, we in Rayalaseema have our own identity and become a third state instead of two states, sooner or later. It calls for tremendous institutional engineering, political statesmanship, vision on part of polity as a whole,'' says Prof Omkarnath.

When advertising professionals Shashi Vadana Reddy and S K Swaroop got married 13 years ago, the fact that Shashi hails from Telangana and Swaroop from Vizag in coastal Andhra, hardly mattered. But now in a situation where Andhra Pradesh is about to be cut into two, Shashi has to walk that extra mile to ensure peace in her household. She says divisions run so deep that people from her side of the family do not even want to give one of their daughters in matrimony to a boy from coastal Andhra.

"Sometimes it becomes a bit heated. For instance, when my aunt comes over. She is totally into Telangana and has very extreme views on it. When she comes over, I make sure Swaroop is not around,'' says Shashi Vadana Reddy.

But it is not so hush-hush when it comes to Telugu films. The manner in which the Telugu film industry, dominated by people from coastal Andhra, portray people from Telangana as comedians, has always been a grouse with those from the region. If a new wave of Telangana filmmakers emerge, that could change though the argument is that films should be made for all nine crore Telugus and not for four crore in Telangana, five crore in Seemandhra and two crore living outside the state.

Eminent film producer D Suresh Babu predicts that there will be one set of filmmakers on both sides who will try to make extreme regional films. "If they have a broader appeal, they will do well across. But if they have only local appeal, they will do well only locally and will slowly die out. Because business needs better films. So they will also come back - the bigger Telangana director and the bigger Vizag director,'' says Suresh Babu.

The situation is worse when it comes to those practising purist cultural traditions. Varsha Bhargavi, a member of the International Dance Council of UNESCO, fears that dance forms that have their roots in coastal Andhra will find the doors of Hyderabad city as an art patron shut on them for ever.

"I feel the bifurcation will really affect the dance forms in Andhra Pradesh especially those performers based out of Vijayawada and Rajahmundry. Already many of them are not allowed to performed in Hyderabad city, which is really the place for the performing arts. We have seen a lot of negative views on Andhra Natyam dance form when we were performing at the Kakatiya dance festival in Warangal last year. We had to announce it as a temple dance tradition instead of Andhra Natyam,'' says Varsha Bhargavi.

If the borders of Andhra Pradesh are redrawn, future generations will witness water wars. That is the prediction, Seemandhra politicians like Kiran Kumar Reddy and Jaganmohan Reddy are making. Their argument is that river water sharing will at best be on paper, but never implemented in letter and spirit by the upper riparian state, which in this case will be Telangana.

Given the confrontationist nature of river water sharing disputes between Karnataka and Tamilnadu and even Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, people from Seemandhra region predict that this division will sound the deathknell for agriculture in coastal Andhra. They point to Andhra Pradesh's experience with Tungabhadra which is jointly managed by Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

"We hardly get 50 per cent of the water allotted to us in any year. In the years of flooding, anyway water will come. But in normal years, we do not even get water that is allotted to us. So now you will have another state created and this state with all its resources can utilise all this water. Who are you going to tell? What are we doing to Karnataka?'' says Somayajulu.

Interestingly, experts predict that Telangana region, that is largely dependent on borewells and tanks, and has seen many farmers burdened by debt killing themselves after their crop failed, could now see its agriculture take a turn for the better.

"Telangana agriculture might show more dynamism. Because they don't have a history of irrigation. Traditionally they have had tank irrigation but now tanks have been closing down due to real estate take over. But as they get more and more into river-based irrigation system, it will improve. Already Karimnagar, according to the Srikrishna committee report, is the rice bowl of Telangana. And the rice millers assocation of Karimnagar is very powerful politically,'' says Omkarnath.

Union ministers like Purandareswari and Pallam Raju from Seemandhra, reconciled to the inevitability of bifurcation, are now bargaining for a hefty package to develop the new state. But it will not be easy to attract private capital, unless juicy carrots are dangled. J A Chowdhary, Chief Mentor of The Indus Entrepreneurs points out that if any industrialist has to set up operations in Seemandhra, he will look for incentives such as tax breaks, both sales tax and income tax.

Analysts also warn Seemandhra against making the mistake Andhra Pradesh did and advise the state's future rulers to develop several industrial hubs across the two regions.

But it is not as if everything is hunky dory for Telangana state. Over focussing on Hyderabad could be a strategic error as would be to use the city only as a money-minting machine for the state exchequer. Experts point out that huge differences within Telangana - between a tribal Adilabad and a Mahbubnagar prone to large scale migrations - will have to be reconciled in a more socialist development ecosystem.

Many like chief minister Kiran Kumar Reddy have argued that the lights will be off the moment Telangana becomes a separate state. That is because it will be a power deficit state. Telangana region now produces 57 million units in a day, but consumes about 115 million units. If the lift irrigation schemes in Telangana were to be implemented, it would need another 175 million units everyday. Which means the state will face a daily shortfall of over 200 million units. The result will either be loadshedding or a drain on the state exchequer to buy power from other states.

Telangana leaders admit the power situation will remain a concern in a future new state but say they will manage it. "Hyderabad is the hinterland of Telangana and is the economic engine that drives Andhra Pradesh today and will drive Telangana tomorrow. So Telangana being a surplus state can buy power from Andhra or Chhattisgarh and if we get grid connectivity, even from the north east. If power is the only issue, there are avenues to make up for the deficit. But yes, we admit that Telangana as on today will be short on power," says K T Rama Rao, TRS leader.

For the last four years, Andhra Pradesh has been a house divided, a case of Us versus Them, with the differences on regional lines completely exposed. But the real test starts now. For people in both states. They need to ensure that while united they stood, divided too they will not fall.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/andhra-pradesh-telangana-seemandhra-andhra-pradesh-formation-day/1/321182.html

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/andhra-pradesh-telangana-seemandhra-andhra-pradesh-formation-day/1/321182.html

101 LIES & DUBIOUS ARGUMENTS OF #TELANGANA SEPARATISTS - Lie #2

Lie #2: There was communal harmony during Nizam’s rule which was disturbed after the formation of Andhra Pradesh state

Muslims dominated the state administration during Nizam rule. Of the 1.7 Crore people living in the Hyderabad state, roughly twenty lakhs, about 12% were Muslims. Despite their small numbers,
Muslims held 90% of the army and police jobs and occupied more than 80% of the government administrative jobs. The religious discrimination was so rampant that, in the railway stations of Hyderabad, there used to be two separate refreshment rooms labeled “Moslem Tea Room” and “Hindu Tea Room” according to a Time Magazine article that came out in August 1948 titled The Holdout.

Anjuman Thabli Gulislam, a religious organization supported by Nizam, actively converted poor and downtrodden Hindus to Islam. To counter these conversion activities, Arya Samaj formed an organization called Shuddhi Sabha. As a result, there was considerable hostility between these two religious groups. Muslims were the rulers. They dominated the administration, and the cultural and intellectual spheres. The majority of the subjects in the Hyderabad State had to bear the domination silently because of their powerlessness. Their meek and silent endurance of brutal dominance by despotic rulers cannot be described as communal harmony. Absence of violent protest by the Hindus against the muslim domination cannot be termed as communal peace.

Unknown History Of Andhra Telangana Golkonda Hyderabad With Sangam Pushpa Sambi Reddy

This person has done a lot of research to come up with some previously unknown facts. She has pored through old books, maps located in the great libraries of UK and US.

For Example: The word Telangana actually came from Telingana....which actually came from Trilingadesa meaning the land between the three great siva temples. Doesnt include Hyderabad or most contemporary districts.

Must watch, see this video of ABN Telugu news channel's interview of Sangam Pushpa Sambi Reddy.
 

 

101 LIES & DUBIOUS ARGUMENTS OF #TELANGANA SEPARATISTS - Lie #1

101 LIES & DUBIOUS ARGUMENTS OF TELANGANA SEPARATISTS

Lie #1: "Telangana was a separate entity for 2200 years out of 2500 years of Telugu history"

Historically, this is untrue. From Satavahanas and Kakatiyas (A.D. 1162 – 1323) to
the Vijayanagara Rayas (A.D. 1336 – 1565), Qutub Shahis (A.D. 1518 – 1687) and
the Nizams (A.D. 1720 – 1948), Telugus were ruled as a single political entity for a
large part of history. Even if you take the Muslim rule which is the recent past, most
of the present day Andhra Pradesh was under the suzerainty of one political power.

In A.D.1766, the Nizam signed a treaty with the British, whereby in return for the
Northern Circars (most of the Coastal Andhra region- which was initially given to the
French), the British agreed to furnish Nizam Ali Khan with a subsidiary force as and
when required. As per another treaty, he surrendered the Guntur circar in A.D.1788. Yet another treaty was signed by the Nizam In A.D.1800 with the British to cede an area comprising the districts of Rayalaseema and Bellary (now in Karnataka).

Even though different kings ruled different parts of the Telugu-speaking region albeit for brief periods, we cannot use historical balkanization to buttress arguments for dividing the state. This argument is as good as saying, India, which was ruled by 500 different kings and nawabs in pre-Independence era, should have as many states.

It is an undeniable fact that the entire Andhra Pradesh of the present day shared similar cultural and
linguistic features all through the history, notwithstanding being under different political dispensations for brief spells.

See maps:

Courtesy: Visalandhra Mahasabha

REFUTING AN AGITATION: 101 LIES & DUBIOUS ARGUMENTS OF TELANGANA SEPARATISTS - Part1

REFUTING AN AGITATION: 

101 LIES & DUBIOUS ARGUMENTS OF TELANGANA SEPARATISTS - Part 1

http://www.myteluguroots.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Refuting-An-Agitation.pdf

Extracts from the book published by Visalandhra Mahasabha

Introduction
This book is an effort to carefully examine the claims, assertions, and allegations that are made by the
separatists in Telangana. These have gone unexamined for a long time. Therefore, they went unchallenged and unquestioned. Not only those who want the state to be divided believed them to be true but also those who are opposed to the division thought initially that there might be a grain of truth in them. We do not know what the purveyors of these claims and allegations thought about them when they brought them into circulation. Did genuinely think that they were true? Or they just propagated them to serve their separatist agenda?

If they genuinely thought that their allegations and claims were true, this book will give them the
correct picture. They should then have no problem in reexamining their argument and revising their position. But if they deliberately distorted the facts to advance their partisan agenda, this book will expose them and call their bluff. We do hope that they reexamine their position in the light of the facts presented in this work. Victimhood evokes sympathy. Telangana separatists repeated their allegations, claims and assertions in concert. They wrote continuously and propagated tirelessly that Telangana region was discriminated against, exploited, humiliated, and insulted. Those who did not have time or opportunity to verify these claims and allegations took them to be true. And as a consequence they found themselves in sympathy with the separatist cause. This is one of the reasons why in Delhi and elsewhere in the country many columnists, political commentators, and several prominent persons in the media and NGO sectors thought that they were lending their support to a deserving cause. Some political parties and their leaders, despite being unfamiliar with the realities in the state of Andhra Pradesh and in Telangana, also extended their support to what they thought was a genuine cause. But, as it turned out, it was uncritical acceptance of claims, undeserving
sympathy for a cause and unthinking support for a demand. We hope that those who accepted the separatists’ claims at face value will carefully examine and evaluate the narrative that we are presenting in this book.

The separatists began their agitation with the claim that Telangana region has been neglected, that it was backward, and that it was exploited. That was the overture to their concert of propaganda. They were emphatic about their claims as long as those claims went unchallenged. Nalamotu Chakravarthy’s book My Telugu Roots was perhaps the first work that challenged those claims of economic exploitation and backwardness. His book conclusively showed that the region is not backward (no more backward or no less prosperous than any other region in the state) and in fact has registered impressive growth in every sector of economic activity since the formation of Andhra Pradesh state in 1956.

That Chakravarthy hails from Telangana region is significant. Separatists could not tarnish his work as a biased interpretation of data by someone unsympathetic to the interests of his own region. They could not come up with a cogent rebuttal of his argument. Therefore, a cowardly physical assault on Chakravarthy was the only thing that they could do to lend force to their claims. They began to lose their cool as they began to lose their argument.

Justice Srikrishna Committee also rubbished the ‘economic backwardness – exploitation’ argument in its report. This marked the final demise of the economic argument of separatists. The argument that jobs of Telangana people were taken away, that there was theft of irrigation water, and that the successive governments neglected the region, that agreements were violated and other related claims and allegations were proved to be simply incorrect and untrue.

Telangana Lies - Continued...

Another lie by those who want to divide Andhra Pradesh - "Nehru during the merger said that an innocent bride is being given in marriage to a crafty groom. According to Nehru, there was a provision of divorce at the time of merger"


This is another falsehood that the separatists have been spreading for too long.
Nehru never uttered these words in his Nizamabad Speech where the separatists
assert that he provided this blank cheque for future use.

The Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, which reproduced the Prime Minister’s
speech at Nizamabad in full, nowhere mentions this remark. In fact, if one observes
the tone and tenor of the speech, Nehru was emphatic about the need for the
people to live together for all-round development of the country.

That he was so against regional, parochial arguments is clear from the following statement of his:
“India does not belong only to you or me but to all of us. Bharat Mata does not belong only
to the people of Hyderabad, or Uttar Pradesh alone. All of us are parts of India and the
whole country belongs to all of you from the Himalayas down to Kanniyakumari. You cannot
tell me Hyderabad and Nizamabad belong to you and Allahabad and Delhi to me. I too have
a right in Hyderabad just as you have claim to the Himalayas, Delhi and other places.”

Blackmail that works fast - Tavleen Singh on Telangana

One of India's most experienced journalists Tavleen Singh on Telangana. This article is dated but still relevant today.....

Blackmail that works fast
By Tavleen Singh 
(Originally written in Dec 2009)

If you do not hear from me next week it will be because I am on hunger strike on a cold pavement near Jantar Mantar. I want Sheila Dikshit’s job and will fast unto death for it. I need to lose three kilos anyway but my motives are political. Ever since Mrs Dixit let Manu Sharma out on parole, I have been thinking of taking her on. I am well qualified. I am from Delhi, better educated, younger, more dynamic and see no reason why she should keep her job. Not only was it amoral to release Manu Sharma the way she did, she is slipping on the infrastructure front as well. The broken roads in my neighbourhood have not been repaired in more than a year and those stadiums for next year’s Commonwealth Games remain un-built. Since neither the Congress Party nor the BJP will consider letting me run on their behalf I have decided that a hunger strike is the way forward. All I have to lose are my kilos.

Besides, if K. Chandrashekhar Rao could get a separate Telangana after a few days of fasting, then why should we not all try to get what we want through political blackmail? Right? By the time you read this Yasin Malik, a Gandhian since he threw away his machine gun, could already be fasting to death in some icy Srinagar square. In Darjeeling there could be some unknown Gorkhaland leader similarly inspired and Ajit Singh who wants to become Chief Minister of a Harit Pradesh has already appeared on television to announce sulkily that he is going to change his tactics. Now there is no way that the Government of India can ignore Irom Sharmila who has been on hunger strike for ten years. All she wants is for the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to be repealed in Manipur. Considering the ‘special powers’ to rape and murder that the armed forces have appropriated in Manipur, Irom Sharmila’s demand is just and should have been conceded long ago.

That really is the point. If a demand is just there should be no place for political blackmail and if it is a stupid demand then no amount of hunger strikes should work. The Telangana demand has long baffled me. As a veteran political pundit I have been asked about Telangana many times. People stop me at airports and in crowded bazaars to ask if I can explain what is behind the demand. I confess that I had to Google up the historical background to Telangana and still understand no more than that it is a backward part of Andhra in which people are ‘proud Telugus’. Are there un-proud Telugus in the rest of Andhra? And, if K. Chandrashekhar Rao was such a hero why did he do so badly in the last general election? Could it be that all he is after is a job for himself to pass on one day to his son who has already entered the ranks of our political princelings.

The manner in which the Government of India succumbed to political blackmail is frightening if you keep in mind that we live in bad times. Not only do we live under the constant threat of Islamist terrorism but now there are signs that the Islamists are winning in Afghanistan. If the Americans need 100,000 troops to defeat the Taliban the war could already be lost. If I were advising President Obama I would have told him to get out of Afghanistan before he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week. In any case the Americans will leave sooner than later and we will have to rely on our own government to protect us from the rabid Taliban. What hope is there for us if an obscure, regional leader can bring the Government of India to its knees by a ten-day hunger strike?

What is more annoying than the political blackmail is the reality that Telangana will make no difference to the lot of the Telanganian citizen. Many small states have been carved out of big ones in recent years and the people of these new states remain in exactly the same appalling conditions as they always were.

The fight against poverty and deprivation can only be won by improved methods of governance. The politicians know they cannot deliver on this front so they encourage expensive distractions like changing the names of cities and cutting big states up into little ones. If the ‘aam aadmi’ is fooled into believing he benefits then there is nothing we can do about it. What we need to worry about is the shameful weakness the Government of India exhibited under pressure from a smalltime regional leader who lost nearly all the seats his party contested in the last election.

http://www.tavleensingh.com/article_detail.php?aid=54
 

GDP down, gross domestic bitterness up - MJ Akbar on Telangana

Excellent article by one of India's most respected journalists - MJ Akbar - on Telangana. (Interestingly, this appeared on a Pakistani site):

GDP down, gross domestic bitterness up

By: M J Akbar

There are no votes in despair

Between 1757 and 1857 the British patched together an Indian empire full of geographical odds but with one logical end: an administrative map which maximised their security and trade, rather than reflected what people wanted. Blaming the British is pointless. They ruled India for Britain's benefit, not India's.

Robert Clive is justly famous for winning Bengal, but an equally significant achievement of his time was conquest of the Andhra coastal belt, called the Northern Circars, in 1758-59. The Nizam of Hyderabad had ceded this region to the French, who promptly lost it to the British. Clive's strategic interest was to control the coast, and establish a land route between the premier British trading cities, Calcutta and Madras, strengthening the defences of both. He knew its value from experience. In 1756, when Clive set out to recapture Calcutta, seized by Siraj ud Daula and renamed Alinagar, his fleet was forced to sail from Madras via Ceylon and Burma to the Hooghly river in Bengal.

The Mughal map had deeper roots in local history and ethnicity, because Mughal expansion, after Akbar, sought to assimilate as much as to acquire. A regional dynasty was permitted to rule over its fief as long as it accepted the Mughal emperor as overlord. The identification between land and people in princely India was deeper, thanks to continuity and feudal tradition. When free India sought a new internal map, based on the will of the people, most disputes emerged from British India, and why would they not when Sind and Gujarat were ruled from Marathi Bombay, and half of Andhra from Tamil Madras?

The Circars were not included in the new state of Andhra Pradesh when it was formed after the end of the Nizam. It required massive protests, and a fast-unto-death that actually ended in death to correct the absurdity of keeping Andhras out of Andhra Pradesh. But poisonous tensions embedded in that initial mistake could never be buried because they had never died. Telengana, consisting of the poorer districts of the Nizamate, soon convinced itself that its progress was being sabotaged by economic aggression of the old Circars. By the 1970s a popular movement, also known as the "mulki struggle", took shape, spurred by the thought that demonstrations and fasts could change a decision in a democratic polity.

Of Andhra's myriad chief ministers, spanning the scale from heroic to useless, only one man seemed to understand that if the problem was economic, then the solution did not have to be political. He was Y. Rajashekhar Reddy, father of Jagan Reddy, and, ironically, the Congress leader who could legitimately claim to be close to Mrs Sonia Gandhi. The demand for Telengana all but evaporated over his six years as CM because he delivered development.

The casualty rate in public life rises not from murder, but suicide. In an astonishing blunder four years ago, a little after Rajashekhar died in a tragic helicopter accident, P. Chidambaram, then home minister, revived a comatose conflict by offering Telengana. Since then, everyone has suffered grievously because of this mistake, except the man who made it.

One of the great mysteries of the present UPA government has been its phenomenal indifference to public rage. It lined up a team of ministers, headed by Kapil Sibal, to sneer at Anna Hazare. Today, Andhra Pradesh is in cinders. What is the response of its top leaders? Mrs Sonia Gandhi emerges now and then to scold the BJP and returns to silence. Rahul Gandhi is deeply concerned about Jupiter velocity touched in the head by lunar sagacity. And Dr Manmohan Singh stops by in Delhi to implement some Rahul Gandhi diktat before he boards again a fast plane to somewhere far, far away. Andhra? It could be on another planet; and if Digvijay Singh has been left in charge, it probably has reached stratosphere in any case.

Political malpractice punishes the nation more than it does any ruling party. Has anyone measured the economic cost of Andhra's meltdown after Chidambaram's blunder? How much of our GDP have we lost in the last four years? And how much has gross domestic bitterness grown?

There will never be unanimity over Telengana, but the quality governance is measured by the management of change. Far from ensuring peace, Congress has itself splintered. Some solutions being suggested are downright stupid, like declaring Hyderabad as a common capital. Hyderabad is over 100 kilometres from the border of Seemandhra. In 1948 Nehru and Patel had sufficient credibility to take a decision through Cabinet on new states. They left the call to a judge and a commission.

You cannot toss a bomb into the air, get out of the way, watch who gets hit on the street and then pick up votes from the debris. There are no votes in despair.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/10/15/comment/gdp-down-gross-domestic-bitterness-up/

MJ Akbar is a leading Indian journalist and author. He is the Editor-in-Chief of The Sunday Guardian. He has also served as Editorial Director of India Today.

BJP's inconsistent stand on Andhra Pradesh bifurcation: Telangana

BJP's inconsistent stand on Andhra Pradesh bifurcation: Telangana

 
"Smaller states were neither viable nor conducive to the integrity of the country"

 "Regional disparities in economic development could be tackled through planning and efficient use of available resources"

We therefore do "not propose creation of a separate state of Telangana"

Who said the above golden words? None other than LK Advani of BJP in April 2002, also then Union Home Minister.

Economic Times says Congress' Telangana game plan ready: Andhra Pradesh

Today's Economic Times says Congress' Telangana game plan ready:

First impose President's rule in Andhra Pradesh,

then target dissidents like CM Kiran Kumar Reddy etc,

then introduce Telangana bill in parliament winter session!


Shameless bastards, Seemandhra people protesting for 70+ days and they still want to go ahead?