Reorganizing Indian States

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 01-22-2008, 07:35 PM by Bodhi.)

I suppose there will be a good amount of news, analysis and debate about reorganizing the Indian States and resulting formation of newer states (Telangana from AP, Bundelkhand & Purvanchal from UP, Vidarbha from Maharashtra etc) particularly after the announcement of the proposla to form a second SRC.

So I suppose a new thread may be in order. Mods please merge with another thread if so thought to be better organized.

Bodhi · 01-22-2008, 07:35 PM

QUOTEMore the merrier?

From Telengana to Bundelkhand, new states are suddenly in season. But there is a problem. The Congress, as Nidhi Sharma reports, can't make up its mind whether another States Reorganisation Commission is a vote winner or an ally loser --

India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

So declared the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, when it gave India its Constitution. Sixty years on, India has come a long way from being a collective of 562 princely states scarred by Partition to a self-assured nation of 28 states.Â

However, once again, the Indian polity is faced with a question that was posed to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru: Should India be divided into smaller States if the people of a region so demand? Nehru was a well-known opponent of creating States on linguistic lines. But a fast-unto-death forced him to change his mind.

It all started with Potti Sriramulu, a freedom fighter and a follower of Mahatma Gandhi. In 1952, Sriramulu fasted for 50 days demanding a separate state for Telugus (today's Andhra Pradesh) and died. Moved by the death of the 51-year-old Sriramulu, Nehru formed a three-member States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953 to look into regional demands.

Chaired by Justice Fazl Ali -- KM Panikkar and HN Kunzru were the other members - the SRC redrew India's internal boundaries. Three years later new States, including Andhra Pradesh, were formed.

Over the past fortnight, the scene has once again shifted to Andhra Pradesh. The demand for a separate State of Telangana is as old as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though the first SRC had also explored the pros and cons of Telangana, it had ruled in favour of a "Vishal Andhra" (United or Greater Andhra), observing public opinion in Telangana had not "crystallised".

The demand has resurfaced now under Telangana leader K Chandashekhar Rao. Cine-star Chiranjeevi, who hails from Telangana, is also keen to peg his political ambitions on the issue. With the BJP supporting the cause of a separate Telangana, the Congress has been cornered. This is a promise the Congress had made in its manifesto for the Andhra Pradesh elections in 2004. It had also been mentioned in the UPA Government's National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP).

Dismantling the giant

Close on the heels of Telangana is the demand for splitting Uttar Pradesh. Though Panikkar had written a note of dissent in the final SRC report and recommended breaking up Uttar Pradesh, he had invited the wrath of Nehru and GB Pant. The senior politicians thought this was an attempt to reduce the clout of Uttar Pradesh and was absolutely unnecessary.

A half-century later, the Congress, which is battling to inch back into Uttar Pradesh's political arena, has pulled this rabbit out of the hat. In the process it has surprised its own functionaries. After BSP czarina Mayawati swept the State and gave the Congress a scare as a spoiler in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, the Congress has found this new formula to re-invent itself in Uttar Pradesh.

However, as soon as the Congress proposed Bundelkhand and while heir-apparent Rahul Gandhi was still mouthing the "we want smaller States" line, Mayawati called for trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh, with a Harit Pradesh being carved out of 23 districts in the western part of the State.

Now, the biggest question before the Congress is whether to constitute a second SRC and allow it to examine the issue.

Flip flop flip

The SRC question could stump the UPA coalition at the Centre. The Left's reservations are well known. The Left parties feel an SRC would revive the Gorkhaland demand in Darjeeling/North Bengal. It was on the Left's insistence that the promise of a second SRC was dropped from the NCMP. The Congress could only manage to include Telangana in a single-line mention: "The UPA Government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana State at an appropriate time after due consultations and consensus."

So if the Left's objections could stall the crucial India-United States nuclear deal, the Congress-led Government would not take chances with SRC formation. That is why the Congress is now trying to delink the issue of Telangana from an SRC. Congress media department chairman M Veerappa Moily says: "The Telangana issue should not be linked to SRC formation. Our stance is what is mentioned in the NCMP and the Congress stands by it."

The Left's reluctance has seen the Congress eat its words. On January 9, party spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said at the official Press briefing that there would be no new State without an SRC. Five days later, his colleague Abhishek Singhvi was equally categorical: "The issue of setting up an SRC or creation of a State is a matter for the Government to decide. In the event that the Government believes that the demand for creation of States is valid, then the Congress would have absolutely no objection. And if it indeed thinks it is a better route to set up an SRC, because issues of economic viability, historical claim, sustainability ... (these would) would be looked at by an expert body."

Within two days, the Congress enthusiasm was waning. Again at the official Press briefing Singhvi said, "The Congress is in agreement in general on smaller States but each individual case has to be decided on its merits." When asked if that meant an SRC would not be formed, Singhvi was evasive: "The Prime Minister has himself clarified that there is no proposal under active consideration of the Government. This does not mean an SRC won't be set up. It only means that it is not being set up for the time being."

The change came after feedback from the Andhra Pradesh Congress unit that the move to form an SRC could be interpreted as a delaying tactic, by the votaries of Telengana.

To be or not to be

Nevertheless, the SRC issue has given way to a bigger debate: should India have smaller States? Gradually demands for States on linguistic lines or even ethnic ones (Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh) have moved to the economic development argument. However, there remains a fear that more States could lead to divisive politics.

There are examples of unending disputes. Orissa has been demanding the return of Saraikela and Kharsuan from Jharkhand. Nagaland wants to cut into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam to create Nagalim. Disputes over State boundaries and water sharing may only multiply. There are also concerns about economically viability or constant, Goa-type political turmoil.

The BJP has always been in favour of smaller States. While in power at the Centre, the NDA had carved out Uttaranchal (present day Uttarakhand), Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha says: "There is no need to constitute a States Reorganisation Commission (SRC). We formed three new States without an SRC. If the demands of the people are well-defined then what is needed is will power and sensitivity."

The party does not make much of the economic viability factor. Sinha says, "This question has been raised time and again. Even when Uttarakhand was being formed, economic viability was the main concern for many. But everything is fine now. It depends on the Government. Look at Jharkhand, which is a State rich in minerals and natural resources. But the Government hasn't done anything."

Opening Pandora's Box

Formation of an SRC could trigger demands other than Bundelkhand and Telangana. There could be a demand for Gondwana, comprising portions of Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh; Kodagu from Karnataka's coffee belt, Bodoland from Assam; Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir; Garoland from Meghalaya; Mithilanchal from Bihar; and, of course, Gorkhaland from Bengal.

This could well open a Pandora's Box that would be difficult for any Government or political party to close. It could even make a simple school examination question - "How many states are there in India?" -- a challenging one. Certainly, the correct answer in 2008 may not hold true in even another year or two.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/AGENDA1.asp?ma...t&counter_img=1

Bodhi · 01-23-2008, 02:55 PM

On another thread ramana wrote:

QUOTE(ramana @ Jan 22 2008, 01:54 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 21 2008, 05:47 PM)AP experts: why are TDP and Congress opposed to a separate Telangana state?Â Is bifurcation of AP an emotive issue in rest of the Andhra?
[right][snapback]77379[/snapback][/right]


The Telugu state was unified after centuries of breakup between Muslim ruled Telengana, Colonial ruled Circars and Coastal Andhra. So it is emotional to see it broken up for petty reason of misgovernance. Telengana at 42% land area is the largest, however due to it being in rainshed area doesnt produce much. Due to long dhimmitude, Telengana has developed a sense of 'takleef' and blames the rest of Andhra Pradesh for its ills.

Leaders from Telengana, like M. Chenna Reddy, raise the issue of disparity and get to power and then they loot the treasury and the cycle goes on.

The state has dumped tremendous resources into developing Hyderabad at the cost of the whole state.

A firm hand is needed to bring some sense to the folks. If there is a demand for a break up then the Telugu tribal districts (Vizag, Vizianagaram, Srikakulam, Khammam, Adilabad also should demand a separate state like Chattisgarh.
[right][snapback]77393[/snapback][/right]
</div>

mupalla wrote:

QUOTE(Muppalla @ Jan 23 2008, 07:50 AM)I totally agree with ramana. Unfortunately Telangana formation looks like a reality with no good leader in any parties of the state. If they make a guy from Telangana as CM of AP everything will subside and that is all it matters to stop this nuisance.

There will be demand by every district to have a seperate state. Every tribal with a population of 1000 or more is demanding a seperate state in NE and do we want the whole of India in the same situation?

Analyze what Chattisgargh or Jharkhand achieved after separation. Nothing other than either lawlessness or political instability. There should be no state less than 180 seats of assembly. Everytime BJP talks about smaller states they talk about Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as examples. Not all states can have the luxury of being river beds. This is a stupid comparison.

I believe UP is heart of India and dividing it in the name of governence is disastorous. By dividing the country into smaller states no one single state will have effect on the policies of central government. The lobbying by states worked very well in the development of country.

Let me give couple of examples. Every year the 2 MPs from Meghalaya request the railway minister to allocte rail development to their state. One time an MP even cried. The rail ministry never cares a two hoot because the state is not important politically. Can they do the same to UP?

Very recently when China intruded into Arunachal Pradesh, there was a protest by Arunachal MPs and no one really joined them in the parliament other than lip service.

If there are some regional imbalances, the states should adress them rather than dividing these states into smaller ones to create more instability.

Someone need to stop both BJP and congress from going into this disastorous path. If they want to bring stability at center they can increase the number of Loksabha seats to 800 based on latest census or divided the 800 equally between regions or by land area. There are many ways to solve the problem of hung Loksabha.
[right][snapback]77446[/snapback][/right]

Bodhi · 01-23-2008, 03:39 PM

QUOTELet me give couple of examples. Every year the 2 MPs from Meghalaya request the railway minister to allocte rail development to their state. One time an MP even cried. The rail ministry never cares a two hoot because the state is not important politically. Can they do the same to UP?

QUOTEBy dividing the country into smaller states no one single state will have effect on the policies of central government. The lobbying by states worked very well in the development of country. 

I agree mupalla. Lobbying worked well for the interests of those states which had the lobbying power, and it worked precisely against smaller states like you mentioned. So small states failed not because they were small, but because there were other states that were large and having lobbying power. Not healthy for the country as a whole, because no matter what you do, for different reasons there are going to be small states around. But dividing larger ones, you are only making a level-playing field.

Also lobbying works only for those states where you have a regional party upon which the central govt depends for support. Remember Naidu's and Jayalalitha's lobbying with NDA govts. Today Mayawati is trying hard but not getting her "UP Package" from UPA govt even after lobbying for the last 7 months. This included relatively smaller things like the sanction and budget for a new International Airport at Noida. On the other hand, DMK with half the numbers, is keeping UPA on its toes about Sethusamudram. So lobbying is not working for UP, but working for TN.

Central decisions should be either free from state lobbying, or the competition field amongst the states should be made evenly leveled. For this we should have evenly sized states, which can only happen with the break up of larger states into smaller states.

===

Lobbying for state at the center is exactly what Rajya Sabha is kind of meant for. State as a unit elects these MPs of the upper house who do not represent a particular district or locality, but whole state in the parliament. Number of Rajya Sabha MPs from a state is according to its population, and minimum 1 for each state.

So if Lok Sabha MPs of a state are coming together to form lobbies, then I think something is not working correctly. LS MP's constituency is his/her district/locality and not his state. If they do form lobbies based upon the state (which they are doing) then it is absolutely unhealthy competition for the smaller states who do not have enough MPs in the parliament to respond. Such trend will only aggravate the unevenness of the investment.

===

Many larger states, like UP, have regions with diverse requirements. Because of political circumstances, some regions get continuousely under-represented within the state government. For example the Purvanchal and Bundelkhand regions of UP are under-represented in the consecutive state governments for the last few decades. As a result, they lack investment and infrastructure development, as compared to the rest of the state.

After Vir Bahadur Singh (early 80s) all the consecutive CMs of UP are from west UP (Mulayam, Kalyan, Mayavati, Rajnath). Despite been represented by PMs during these decades (VPS, Chandra, ABV, and super PM Sonia, quasi-PM RG), East UP remains much behind west UP in development.

This also has to do with the fact that the party in power at UP is always in opposition at center since 1991, with very brief periods of exceptions. So generally investment from center is low, and when it comes it goes to the West mostly.

A state can have uneven local development - not because of unevenness of natural resources - but because of under-representation in the administration and government. How would you ensure even representation without making smaller states?

Some states have even introduced so called "autonomous regions" (darjeeling hills area in WB, and Upper Assam Hills in Assam). This too - a state within a state - is not a natural apparatus and does not work for various reasons.

4) Regional Parties will eventually either get limited and restricted to smaller states they represnt, or evolve into larger parties with vision beyond their petty state. If Telangana is made a separate state, TDP's bargain will obviousely get smaller, and Telangana will go to TRS/BJP/Chiranjeevi's party etc. Smaller regional parties with less bargaining power (SAD, Ajit, Chautala, JMM) will be easier to deal with at center than large regional parties (comies, BSP, TDP). This will not only result in a stronger and more stable center but also have a larger role in better assimilation and integration.

===
a. State = something to be proud of? this is the situation today, but it must change. Let state be purely an administrative unit. Remove pride unit from power unit (except for national pride). It will be disasterous to continue to nourish pride at a large state level. One can very well be proud of language, culture, heritage, ancestory, or his village. But pride on "state" is artifically promoted and undermines national pride.

b. State represents a lingustic group? Where is a need to have one huge state for all the people of a language? Why can there not be multiple states representing a single language? whats wrong with that? State boundary based upon language itself is unnatural. Any sub-national pride bucket should be removed from holding power.

E.g. One can be proud on Tamil as one's language, but let there be no single "state" caliming to be standard-bearer of Tamizh. Let there be 3 Tamizh-"Nadu-s". Let a Tamizh youth of Kovai district be proud of his language Tamizh, his land Kongunadu, and his nation Bharat, and having no need to be pitted against the Kannada speaking nighbouring state (over Kaveri) as the issue is irrelevant to him. Today he is pitted in needless conflict only because of language. Such issues might become better defined and less politicized.

c. These states should be definitely considered for reorg:
UP, MH, JK, AP, WB
then: BR, MP, TN, KA, RJ, GJ

There should be about 40-50 states, each not having more than 20 Lok Sabha seats out of total 800 (reorganized) LS seats.

01-24-2008, 08:57 AM

Good thread to start. However, this state reorganization is imminent with Congress and BJP together are also in this bandwagon with the sub regional forces.

It is easy to say that small states will be good for governance. it may be true and may be not. We cannot simply go on divide them. There are some historical factors behind them. Strategically also it is a diasaster. More so if the smaller states are in the borders. If this is really true then why US did not divide all its states to the size of Delaware. Why they have populous and large states like California, Texas and NY?

Consider the division of JK to J, K and Ladakh as proposed by RSS sometime back. The K is forcefully glued because of J and Ladakh in many situations. By dividing you are removing the glue. When India is strong milatarily and economically, it is no big deal. There will be times when there could be economic disasters and we might be in a situation like Indonesia. it gave up East Timor as it could not fight for it.

Similarly think of southern Tamilnadu. If that becomes a state on its own there will be another state like Kerala with about 35% of EJised population in the mould of another 30% macualites. This small state will now provide political power to EJs. So far they are not having direct political power. What if when India is not doing good, this state conspires with LTTE and want a seperate Tamiz country? People get weird ideas at weird times. Why should we even allow such a situation?

Church is the main hurdle in Nagaland to remove the Article 370 of that state and also the seperatist movements there. It is a small state in the border. No need to mention Mizoram with 60 assembly seats.

Eventhough I hate to see seperate Telangana (it might be inevitable as things stand these days), I am more than angry to see UP being divided. UP is the heart of Indian politics. It is going through a bad phase due to lack of unifying leadership. By dividing important states like UP, Bihar, Maha etc, there will be a situation when you will not be able find a single leader with reasonable support around whom rest of the folks can rally around.

I hated Jharkand and see the miserable state of Bihar's economy as most of the economic powerhouse went to Jharkand. In Jharkand there are already two governments in one term and they are talking of a third one.

See the Goa situation. There was never a term with one stable government. I don't need to talk about NE states. They don't even have sufficent acronyms to name their coalition formations that form on an yearly basis.

Imagine a situation where we have 200 parties and each getting <4 seats each in a parliamentary election. If there are large states atleast there will be only 50 parties with few of them getting 70 to 80 seats with a capability to negotiate and form a government.

The real guys who are behind smaller states are Maoists, EJs and many international anti-Indian NGOs. BJP is falling for this small states policy without a clear thinking.

Congress never allowed this during Indira or Rajiv. Indira just made successive CMs from Telangana region to ward of state divison. Rajiv went to the extent of hill council creations and not seperate states. Currently we have Italian congress and this party has no India interests and hence they are implementing the divisive agenda of EJs and maoists.

The locals who think of political power are just selfish and narrow minded with no vision. Their greed and local emotions are being whipped by these divisive forces.

When BJP had this as stated policy in the 90s, the things were not this bad and it has to revise its stated policy and it is not trying to revert its policy.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 01-24-2008, 02:59 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTEConsider the division of JK to J, K and Ladakh as proposed by RSS sometime back. The K is forcefully glued because of J and Ladakh in many situations. By dividing you are removing the glue.

in fact the situation is exactly opposite. In Jammu, Sikh+Hindu are in majority and in Laddakh, Buddhists make a majority. However because of the population of the valley, J&K as a whole becomes a Muslim majority state.

Geographically, Laddakh + Leh + Jammu, are strategically important to militarily encircle and control the entire Kashmir valley, and separate it from Pakistan-controled areas.

Muslim majority from valley is ruling the entire state including control over Buddhist Ladakh, Hindu-Sikh Jammu, and very quickly islamizing the entire state. Do go through the important document regarding how tghis control has already purged the Balti-Bodhi language of Ladakh replacing by Urdu.

If you trifurcate the J&K, and make Ladakh and Jammu separate regions, which is what those people are demanding, then you allow for a LARGE area to be controled by Hindu, Sikh, Bauddha etc, empovering them in the process, besides limiting the "issue" to a smaller area: Kashmir Valley.

QUOTEThere are some historical factors behind them. 
If you referring to what happened 4 decades back as 'historic facts', then those were blunders. We must go to even farther back in history to see how "states" were organized - say under Vijayanagaram, Chola-s, and even earlier as Janapada-s.

QUOTESimilarly think of southern Tamilnadu. If that becomes a state on its own there will be another state like Kerala with about 35% of EJised population in the mould of another 30% macualites. This small state will now provide political power to EJs.

TN and KL are already providing whatever power they can to EJ. If anything that will change, it would be that these states will have much less political power and revenue base, to support such anti-national forces. Today, entire TN, KL (and AP) - thanks to the dispensations ruling thse states - are handed on a platter to EJs. If the states were smaller, you can be assured that at least some of them will be in pro-Hindu control, and those which will be pro-EJ, will be smaller and weaker.

QUOTEWhat if when India is not doing good, this state conspires with LTTE and want a seperate Tamiz country? People get weird ideas at weird times. Why should we even allow such a situation?
Once again, situation not any different today. Only if that state will be smaller (therefore less resourceful) than today, it will have less chance of doing anything of that sort.

QUOTEUP, Bihar, Maha etc, there will be a situation when you will not be able find a single leader with reasonable support around whom rest of the folks can rally around.
To this I partly agree. But road to central politics does not necessarily go through the state politics. There are many leaders in all parties at center who never been in state politics.

QUOTESee the Goa situation. There was never a term with one stable government. I don't need to talk about NE states. They don't even have sufficent acronyms to name their coalition formations that form on an yearly basis.

But what has the size to do with instability in Goa? Instability remains in big Karnataka too. UP had not had plain simple majority in Vidhan Sabha for any single party between 1993 and 2007. Naturally, CMs had to spend large share of their bandwidth and attention in managing the partners rather than administering the state. Likewise Jharkhand, despite having continuousely rejected Lalu's rule, was still forced to have him (or his wife) as CM.

Small states can also have very good stability (in fact better than big states). Stability has got more to do with number of parties in a particular state rather than the size. States, even smaller, where there are 2 (or max 3) parties, the govts are stable. Look at Delhi, HP, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Puducherry, Chhattisgadh etc. In fact, larger the state with growing multi-party presence, like UP, MH, AP, KA - lesser the chance of a stable state govt.

Border Areas: Need speacial arrangements, and must be controled by the center. In fact if you did come across this news, there is presently a proposal made by Security Advisor to the govt: that soldiers, retiring soldiers, and ex-soldeirs should be settled in all the bordering districts of India, and these districts should be classified and managed separately.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 02-04-2008, 10:07 PM by Bodhi.)

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story...EWEN20080040136

QUOTERaj Thackeray has done it again. After outraging Biharis by calling the Chhat festival a 'drama', he has hit out at superstar Amitabh Bachchan for not being loyal enough to Maharashtra.

''Amitabh Bachchan chose to contest elections from Uttar Pradesh instead of Mumbai. If a person of such stature who is revered in Mumbai can feel patriotic about his own state, can't Raj Thackeray feel the same?'' said Raj Thackeray, President, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.


Another instance of purely idiotic regional-pride. Has absolutely no element of cultural-pride (language-pride etc). Purely regional pseudo-patriotism which has become for Raj Thakeray even bigger than national/Hindutva-identity, that he has called Chhath festival a 'drama of Bihari-s'.

News items also showed his party targetting the programs of Manoj Tewari, the famous Bhojpuri Folk singer who was to perform in Mumbai. Morons do not know that Tewari's many songs have Shivaji as a hero, and many of his songs are very nationalistic.

Raj Thakeray has called for a ban on Bhojpuri films running in Maharashtra, some theatres in Mumbai and Nashik have already been attacked by his mobs.

Like Delhi, why should Mumbai also not be made a separate state?

02-05-2008, 06:39 PM

Everytime there is trouble or trouble makers, there is no need for knee jerk reaction of "let's divide the state". Unfortunately this seems to be current fashion in India politics and the political analysts.

India is a diverse country in the large unified hindu family. For whatever the reason, language was taken as the basis for division in the non-hindi speaking areas. It is important to make it work rather than dividing the states where ever there is some existence of diversity. It is important for the politicos and social engineers to teach the populace to live and enjoy diversity.

Due to internal migrations and economic development/investments some areas developed better than other areas. The backward areas are backward not becuase some others are smart or looted the wealth from poor. They were backward becasue a proper economic model based on geographical data was not chosen. All it matters is to change the economic models in the backward regions.

I belive it is very important to allow the diversity inside the states and not divide them just there are slightly diverse groups in one region of the state from other regions. If we go this route then it can't be 50 states, it will be 1000 states in India.

Inspite of chuvanistic Maharastra regionlism, SS never reached a stage where it can rule on its own. Inspite of Telugu pride, TDP was never able to repeat DMK kind of politics in AP (initially that was their thought). If we divide these states, definitly one or more the new states will become like TN with anti-north/anti-rest movements and anti-hindi campaigns.

The mantra that worked against such movements in these states is becuase of existing diversity. If we start removing such diversity in the name of (using the verbal spin) better governence, then the country has to face many such ugly movements. It is no more 1960s. These days every movement will have funding/back ground support from EJs, maoists and anti nationals.

ramana · 02-06-2008, 02:34 AM

In AP the rise of NTR has put a damper on Telegana aspirations. Let me explain myself before brickbats are thrown. Once NTR came to power there was no way a Telengana leader could be foisted onthe people in a popular contest. IOW opposition to NTR and CBN had to come from Andhra and that put a stop to the INC practice of letting off Telengana crisis/steam by appointing a CM from the region. But in fairness to the TDP., Hyderabad developed by leaps and bounds during their rule and a developing Hyderabad has a ripple effect on Telegana region whether one admits or not.

One thought I have is that Raj Thackeray type of regional politics is to declare all the major metros as their own states open to all of India.

02-06-2008, 06:00 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Feb 5 2008, 04:04 PM)One thought I have is that Raj Thackeray type of regional politics is to declare all the major metros as their own states open to all of India.
[right][snapback]78102[/snapback][/right]


That is what going on even regarding Hyderabad. If Telangana forms then Hyderabad might be formed as a seperate state.

The real issue is there should be very strong arm in the form of law and order maintenance and should put people like Raj Thackeray type should be put permanently behind bars using POTA type laws. Unless these types are severly beaten and killed, new senseless politcal movements like stop cropping up. This is the problem of being too soft.

02-10-2008, 08:03 PM

BJP dares Congress to create Telangana
8 Feb, 2008, 0208 hrs IST, TNN

NEW DELHI: With elections to the Andhra Pradesh assembly just over a year away, the BJP on Thursday sought to complicate matters for the Congress by daring it to bring a legislation in Parliament seeking the creation of the separate state of Telangana.

Reiterating his partyâs position on the issue, BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar made it clear that the party would back any such move sponsored by the Congress-led alliance inside and outside Parliament. The stand, the BJP leadership reckons, would lure all parties committed to the creation of a separate Telangana, including the TRS, to join hands with it on the issue.

A day after the Congress accused the opposition of blocking the formation of Telangana, the BJP hit back, accusing the Congress of dragging its feet on delivering on its electoral promise of creating the separate state.

If anyone was indulging in double-speak on the issue, Mr Javadekar alleged, it was the Congress. ``Its electoral victory in Andhra Pradesh in 2004 was the outcome of its alliance with the TRS. The Congress had agreed to creating the Telangana state once it came to power, but had since then reneged on its promise, forcing the TRS to break away from the UPA,ââ the BJP spokesman said.

By making an aggressive push for the formation of the new state, the BJP hopes to reclaim its support-base in the Telangana region.

The party had been forced to jettison the issue after it forged an alliance with the TDP on the eve of the 1999 Lok Sabha and assembly polls. The issue remained in the cold-storage till the time it remained in the TDPâs company. The association hurt the BJP badly, as it forfeited its support-base in the region.

02-10-2008, 08:14 PM

BJP is playing a very clever and beautiful game in AP. It is putting both TDP and Congress on mat. For BJP there is no base in the state other than few pockets of Hyderabad and there is nothing to lose.

Congress has a serious problem by Telangana seperation as it will get a riot act in both coastal AP and Rayalaseema. There will other kind of serious seperate state movements with more vigour in the state. Seperate "Greater Rayalaseema" and seperate Hyderabad are two most prominent movements that will start immediately.

TDP will lose the AP state( seperate states) will lose in the short run. There is no way the politics will remain same and hence BJP is playing a game that it will not lose.

TDP is paying bigtime for moving away from NDA and hobnobbing with so called third front and left.

02-10-2008, 09:00 PM

QUOTE("Muppalla")TDP is paying bigtime for moving away from NDA and hobnobbing with so called third front and left.

Well TDP was instrumental in forming the UNPA with amma. The first decision that UNPA took was to abstain in the presidential election but interestingly amma's AIADMK voted in the elections which shows that there is absolutely no common agenda that the parties in UNPA can work on.

Regarding forming other small states, AP is always the leader in any new developments regarding these movements. The First state re-organisation committee was formed due to the agitation in AP and due to it's recommendations other states formed like Mysore(latter renamed Karnataka).

If telegana state becomes an reality then there is an likelihood of demand for North Karnataka state being raised again, after all these of years of it being in cold storage.

ramana · 02-10-2008, 10:17 PM

Folks please read "Andhra Between the Empires". Its a tar file. The gist of the book is that AP was experimented by the British since 1748 the death of the first Nizam. All the colonial policies were tried out in AP and then implemented all over India. The key to the British success is the divisive tendencies of the AP people. Not language, not region ties them together. its only groupism.

I do not support separate Telengana as finally after centuries the Telugu people were united in Andhra Pradesh. The solution is equitable power sharing and economic development. Again goes to good governance.

02-14-2008, 03:49 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Feb 10 2008, 11:47 AM)Folks please read "Andhra Between the Empires". Its a tar file. The gist of the book is that AP was experimented by the British since 1748 the death of the first Nizam. All the colonial policies were tried out in AP and then implemented all over India. The key to the British success is the divisive tendencies of the AP people. Not language, not region ties them together. its only groupism.
[right][snapback]78311[/snapback][/right]


I believe this is not just the case with AP, it applies to any part of India. It has become a fashion to use governance and dhimmitude as excuse to divide the states. When the chimps are down for the Bharat all these smaller states will behave like East Timor. I hated the day when Jharkand was carved out. Laloo accepted Jharkand just to be on CM gaddi. Magadh founders will be crying in their graves. BJP is overconfident. It thinks it can manage the day when the problems occurs. It is not thinking when the wrought sets, the current leaders will not be there. It has to think for the worst. There may be a day when anyone of us is alive and BJP becomes like the current congress. The pary stalwarts should plan for that day as well. The fressness of its current status is giving them over confidence.

QUOTE(ramana @ Feb 10 2008, 11:47 AM)I do not support separate Telengana as finally after centuries the Telugu people were united in Andhra Pradesh. The solution is equitable power sharing and economic development.Â Again goes to good governance.
[right][snapback]78311[/snapback][/right]


Eventhough I am helpless and watching the show like any other armchair analyst, I hate any state's divison in India. It might be an extreme emotion but I have a feeling that divison of UP is start of balkanization of India. The balkanization might take 50 years but it can be a start. UP is center of gravity for many reasons both political and cultural in modern India.

I hope little sanity comes back to political parties and stop this below the belt regional politics.

ramana · (This post was last modified: 02-15-2008, 01:12 AM by ramana.)

Mupalla I hear you and agree whole heartedly that bad governance is being converted into division of states. It will be 1192 all over again.

Mupalla please get the file untarred and read it. My son says it needs a linux machine to untar it. If you or anyone can do it please try to consolidaate the file and post a link.

Thanks, ramana

ramana · 02-15-2008, 01:32 AM

From Deccan Chronile, 15 Feb. 2008

QUOTE75% does not want state split
Â

Hyderabad, Feb. 14: A massive 75 per cent of the state does not want bifurcation, even though a majority of people in Telangana favour the formation of a separate state. Of 55,023 respondents polled in a survey conducted by Nielson Org-Marg for regional channel N-TV between October and December last year, only 25.04 per cent favoured the division of the state. In Telangana, however, 59 per cent wanted statehood for the region.

Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema overwhelmingly rejected division of the state. Of 9,799 samples collected in Rayalaseema only 11 per cent favoured the creation of a new state. A huge 95 per cent of the 25,406 respondents in Coastal Andhra were opposed to the idea. The survey showed that the Telangana sentiment is not very strong in Hyderabad (45 per cent) and the districts of Mahbubnagar (30 per cent) and Khammam (45 per cent). Districts in Telangana solidly backing separate statehood are Nalgonda (77 per cent), Warangal (77 per cent), Nizamabad (75 per cent), Karimnagar (65 per cent), Adilabad (63 per cent) and Ranga Reddy (64 per cent). Support for a new state is stronger in urban areas (54 per cent) than in rural areas (46 per cent).



yes the polticians want o make it happen. What is the real problem? So maybe a Greater Hyderabad including the two districts of Mahabubnagar and Khamam can be retained with the remaing Andhra Pradesh and retain a Telugu composite state? How would that look on the map? Otherwise its grave injustice to forcibilly merge these three districts with the rest of the nimrods by considering them part of greater Telengana.

02-15-2008, 05:10 PM

QUOTE(ramana @ Feb 15 2008, 01:32 AM)yes the polticians want o make it happen. What is the real problem? So maybe a Greater Hyderabad including the two districts of Mahabubnagar and Khamam can be retained with the remaing Andhra Pradesh and retain a Telugu composite state? How would that look on the map? Otherwise its grave injustice to forcibilly merge these three districts with the rest of the nimrods by considering them part of greater Telengana.
[right][snapback]78503[/snapback][/right]
Ramana first they will / may ask for a small state of telangana leaving some parts out as an interim solution. Then they will try to get the remaining parts either through the ligitation route( filing petitions in SC that grave injustice is caused to telangana by not including the other parts contested both by AP and Tel'gana) OR through violent protests.

The best course of action is not to give any party supporting the creation of tel'gana even a small chance of consolidating their base on the question of Tel'gana. Start attacking the parties supporting tel'gana.
*Question the TRS's locus standi on the issue?
*What has the TRS done to the consititutencies in tel'gana from which they have been elected to LS and state asembilies?
*The leader of TRS had been implicated in the passport scam? Why not ask him some hard questions regarding his honesty and character?

Ramana start an e-mail campaign or an online campaign opposing tel'gana and questioning the credibility of the people supporting the division of AP.

02-15-2008, 05:10 PM

'Bifurcation may boost extremism'

Feb 15, 2008

HYDERABAD: Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy quoted Central and State intelligence inputs on Thursday as suggesting that there was scope for the extremist problem to escalate in the event of bifurcation of the State.

Dr. Reddy said separate Telangana was a âcomplex and delicateâ issue which could not be resolved âtoday itselfâ. He counselled TRS members to await the decision of the Congress high command which was examining it from all angles.

Citing how Chhattisgarh was severely affected by extremist problem, he said the naxalites were also seeking a separate State.

The Chief Minister was making his first ever detailed statement on the Telangana issue in the Assembly after it was rocked for the third day by placard-waving Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) members.

All 13 of them were suspended and some bodily lifted out but the suspension was revoked later. Even in the Council, three TRS members were suspended till February 18 after Chairman A. Chakrapani rejected their demand for admitting an adjournment motion.

Recalling the two separatist movements that rocked the State more than three decades ago, he said the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi convinced the people to live harmoniously in an integrated State.

Referring to the efforts of the UPA committee headed by Pranab Mukherjee to build a consensus on Telangana, he said some parties supported formation of a separate State, while others opposed it. The TDP which initially favoured an integrated State was now saying that an appropriate decision would be taken at an appropriate time.

Mr. Mukherjee tried to speak to all stakeholders, including leaders from different regions. Some wanted greater Rayalaseema by including Nellore and Prakasam districts, while others wanted statehood for north coastal Andhra comprising three districts.

Still others, including representatives of some political parties, wanted a State to be carved out from Greater Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy district.

In such circumstances, the problem was left to the Congress high command to be resolved.

He said the Congress had promised in its manifesto to constitute a Statesâ Reorganisation Commission but it was no longer relevant as it was vehemently opposed by the TRS and a section of Congress leaders.

He recalled that former TRS leader A. Narendra had signed a letter at Gandhi Bhavan before the elections that both the parties were agreeing for second SRC.

Dr. Reddy sought to clarify that he was not standing in the way of formation of Telangana but was only trying as Chief Minister to develop all backward regions.

He said Congress MLAs sought separate Telangana when he was Leader of Opposition as they felt that the then Telugu Desam Government neglected the region, especially in irrigation.

Appealing to the TRS to work together with the Congress in the development of every backward region, he said both these parties ran the risk of being weakened if there was confusion as happened in the Zilla Parshad elections three years ago.

02-16-2008, 06:21 AM

Ramana

I will look into tar file and try to see if I can change the format and attach it(or email it).

Regarding the survey, about 5 years back there was a similar survey by DC in just the Telangana districts. 51% responded against the split.

Even if it is 59% it is really not that big number to divide the state. There is substantial portion of the populace who does not think that it is important to seperate. I do not think it is going to be easy to seperate the state.

The surprise from the numbers is Mahaboobnagar < 50% and Nalgonda >50%. I expected opposite.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?