Government’s draft proposals for the formation of new districts with Kamareddy as one of the headquarters and merging Banswada and Jukkal Assembly constituencies in Medak district created utter confusion among people.
Their objection is not against the creation of new districts but against the logic behind proposed merger of constituencies in different districts. For example, merger of Armoor in Kamareddy is not convenient for Armoor people as they have to pass through Nizamabad rural (formerly Dichpally) which is proposed to be kept in Nizamabad district.
The move to keep Balkonda which is above Armoor on NH-44 in Nizamabad is resented by the Armoor and Balkonda people.
Ridiculing the proposals the BJP district Palle Ganga Reddy said that transferring Armoor to Kamareddy keeping Dichpally and Balkonda in Nizamabad is irrational and not convenient to people.
He said if these proposals become a reality people would agitate against them. Hailing the formation of new districts the DCC president Taher Bin Hamdan observed that if the Balkonda, Armoor, Nizamabad rural and Bodhan were kept in Nizamabad it would be comfortable for people and authorities to deliver duties without hurdles.
He also opined that Jukkal and Banswada instead of being merged in Medak they must be brought under Kamareddy district.
New problems will crop up if the backward Jukkal along with Banswada was transferred to Medak as they are nearer to Nizamabad and Kamareddy rather than Medak.
Of course, their merger with Kamareddy could be understood, according Sk. Lateef, a local scribe of a vernacular daily.
The TNGOs’ Association district president Gaini Gangaram is of the opinion that it would be far better if the Kamareddy district isformed only with the constituencies presently lying in its revenue division.
