Opinion » Lead

Updated: February 1, 2013 01:45 IST

Living together, separately

Ramachandra Guha
Comment (34)   ·   print   ·   T  T  

Advocates of smaller states have a robust case. India should look for further reorganisation as it no longer needs to fear about the country’s unity

I recently came across some fascinating news reports, dating from the year 1914, on the then growing demand for a separate state for Telugu speakers. In towns such as Guntur, Nellore and Vijayawada (known at the time as Bezwada), many meetings were held, asking for a separation of Telugu-speaking districts from Madras Presidency, with areas from the Nizam’s Dominions being added on later when conditions permitted.

Tamils on Telugus

The Tamil intelligentsia did not take kindly to this movement for an ‘Andhra desa’. Thus, in its issue of 6th June 1914, Swadesamitran, a widely circulated newspaper published out of Madras, wrote disparagingly of a conference in Guntur which claimed that Tamil domination blocked the progress of the Andhras. The Andhras, it was argued here, needed to break free of the Tamils to realise their hopes and ambitions.

Swadesamitran said it could not “understand the rationale of this argument. If Tamilians are forward in education, etc., their company can only infuse a spirit of emulation in the minds of the Andhras. How can it impede the progress of the latter? The Andhras are not a set of uncivilised barbarians. They are an intelligent community with an ancient civilisation and the example of the Tamilians is bound to create in them new desires and aspirations. This is exactly what is happening. The present feeling among the Andhras that they have not been progressing much, and their demand for a separate province and equal privileges with the Tamilians indicate only this new desire and aspiration. We are at a loss to understand the meaning of their demand that they should be separated from the Tamilians. Is it that they do not want the Tamilians to step into their portion of the country? The patriotic leaders of the country are striving their best to do away with the distinction of caste and creed in India, which prevents the union of the people and impedes the progress. It is therefore regrettable that the Andhras should try to separate from others and form an independent community.”

Despite Tamil scepticism, the movement for a separate state of Telugu speakers persisted. Through the 1920s and 1930s, Congress leaders from the Andhra districts raised the demand at meetings of the party. Within the Congress, these Andhrawallahs had one strong ally — Mahatma Gandhi, who early on, recognised the importance of linguistic states — and several strong opponents, such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, who worried that such demands would weaken the unity of the nation-in-the-making. Already, by the 1930s, Muslim intellectuals had begun moving away from the Congress, finding refuge instead in a newly revived Muslim League, now headed by the brilliant Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Renewed demand for separate state

The demand for a separate Muslim state gathered pace, and eventually resulted in the creation of Pakistan. However, once India gained its independence, the Andhra speakers renewed their demand for the reconfiguration of provincial boundaries to create compact units whose populations spoke the same language. But Nehru and Patel were worried that (as with the Muslim League and Pakistan) separate provinces could become the launching pad for separate nations.

Meanwhile Gandhi died, removing from the scene the most influential non-Andhra supporter of Andhra Pradesh. The Congress high command now thought that the demand would slowly ebb away. Instead, it intensified, with protest meetings being held all across the Madras Presidency.

In October 1952, a veteran Congressman named Potti Sriramulu went on a fast demanding the immediate constitution of an Andhra State. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, C. Rajagopalachari, and the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, both ignored him. But Sriramulu was undeterred. He fasted, and fasted, dying during the night of 15/16 December after 56 days without food. His martyrdom provoked widespread public anger, with hartals and dharnas held across the Telugu country, and demonstrators attacking and burning government offices and railway stations.

Unnerved by the scale of the protests, and the intensity of the anger, Nehru and Rajaji capitulated. An Andhra State was formed in 1953, provoking Kannada, Marathi, and Malayalam speakers all to demand separate states of their own. A States Reorganisation Commission was formed, which recommended the constitution of linguistic states.

Unity and linguistic states

I have long held that the creation of linguistic states has safeguarded the unity of India. Pakistan was divided, and Sri Lanka subject to a protracted civil war, because Bengali speakers in the one case and Tamil speakers in the other were refused the autonomy and dignity they wanted and deserved. On the other hand, the fact that in India citizens are free to educate and administer themselves in their own language has created a feeling of comfort and security.

Linguistic states were crucial at one stage of Indian history, but have they now outlived their usefulness? In north Karnataka, in the inland districts of Andhra Pradesh and of Maharashtra, and in the hilly districts of northern Bengal — in all these places there are vigorous movements calling for separation from the parent province. Are these movements legitimate, and will they persist? Or are they spurious and hence to be disregarded?

Of all these struggles for separate states, the movement for Telangana is the oldest as well as the most intense. When Andhra Pradesh was constituted, the residents of these inland districts, formerly under the rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad, worried that they would be dominated by the more prosperous and educated parts of the State, which were along the coast, and previously part of the British-ruled Madras Presidency. The inlanders thus asked for special safeguards, and, when these were not granted, launched a major social movement in the year 1969, demanding a separate state of Telangana. Ever since, the demand has been persistently raised, with varying levels of intensity — but it has never gone away.

The leaders and opinion-makers of coastal Andhra do not wish to see their state broken in two. The rhetoric they use in opposing the Telangana movement is strikingly similar to that used by the Tamils, back in 1914 or thereabouts, when they asked the Andhras not to ask for a separate state of their own. Why break up a unity once achieved, they say. And if the residents of Telangana want to progress, does not living with the more advanced residents of coastal Andhra give them the necessary impetus to do so?

Politics of Telangana

It took 40 (and more) years for the Telugu speakers of Madras Presidency to make the Tamils see the sense of the demand for Andhra Pradesh. The Telangana movement is already 40 (and more) years old; and it still hasn’t quite achieved what it aimed for. Before the General Elections of 2004, the Telangana Rashtra Samiti allied with the Congress, which informally promised it would concede the TRS’ main demand, while formally stating that it would create a States Reorganisation Commission if voted to power. The Congress alliance came to power in 2004, but a new SRC did not materialise. This led to a renewal of the protests, whereupon, in December 2009, the then Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, promised that the demand for Telangana would soon be granted. But he quickly backtracked. More recently, the Bharatiya Janata Party has said that it would create a Telangana state within 100 days of coming to power at the Centre. As with the Congress in 2004, this promise may be opportunistic rather than principled — intended only to gain votes and seats for its alliance.

My own view — writing as both historian and citizen — is that while linguistic states were necessary in the first, early, stages of Indian independence, it may now be time for a further reorganisation of states. The proponents of Telangana, Vidharbha, and Gorkhaland all have a robust case.

Their regions are well defined in an ecological and cultural sense, and have historically been neglected by the more powerful or richer parts of the State. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh is far too large to be administered as a single unit. Breaking it up into three or four states would lead to more effective and focused governance.

After 65 testing years of independence, there need no longer be any fear about the unity of India. The country is not about to Balkanise, nor is it about to become a dictatorship. The real problems in India today have to do with the quality of governance. Smaller states may be one way to address this problem.

(Ramachandra Guha’s books include India after Gandhi. He can be contacted at

More In: Lead | Opinion

Timely and thought-provoking article by Sri Guha...but I felt his
argument is based much on historical perspective rather than by thorough
analysis of pros and cons in the current context...

from:  Ravi Kiran Edara
Posted on: Feb 2, 2013 at 01:17 IST

Its not even about Hyderabad but its all all all about Hyderabad's
INCOME which is now utilized across the state of AP(20+ districts). Over
5 decade's people from 20+ districts made a living and are paying taxes
to the state. Now its impossible for them to move on to other places,
hence, Hyd Income remains there.

The idea is, if Telangana is formed, all all the Hyd Income which once
is utilized for 20+ districts will now be used only for 10 districts.
Just imagine the plight of other 10+ districts which don't have any
major state Income sources.

If the above scenario is fine, what is wrong in Hyd(people
democratically) asking for a separate state and utilizing all its Income
just in Hyd and leaving the rest of the districts to their own fate.

What if Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, Coimbatore and Others want to
separate as well?

Its unfortunate India don't have leaders who can unite us. And we
knowingly falling prey to their divisional tactics at every step.

from:  vk
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 18:29 IST

From a management perspective, the notion of small administrative
units is appealing and in the cases when the affluent oppresses the
poor, the cry is understandable. However, if development of poor is
indeed the cause for the protests then breaking the states into
smaller states won't work! First, the rich always create a barrier for
the poor to develop. If someone analyzes the laws in India and
elsewhere, it could easily be noted that the laws are made such that
the poor remains poor and middle class remains middle class for at
least 3 generations. Even if the GoI concedes, I'm sure it'll but is
waiting for 2014, the people will soon realize what I'm trying to say!
The only beneficiaries of the telangana or the other state movements,
are the politicians both in the Centre and the state (Need I
elaborate). Even now, the "leaders" had lost nothing but only the
students incited by them has lost their lives - People please wake-

from:  Bharat
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 15:46 IST

If the demand for a Telangana is justified why is the demand for Hyderabad state unjustified? And if public opinion of a part of a region can be the reason for formation of a new state, why cannot the argument be extended to the national level.

from:  Sanket
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 15:32 IST

Firstly, a good leader will always bring a change in present system but never support any division (linguistic,racist etc.) thus the leaders for separate state are more interested in power than bringing a change.
Secondly, I don't believe India has a good track record of developing new carved out states let it be Jharkhand, Chattisgarh or north eastern states.

from:  Pratul Gupta
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 15:30 IST

well.. after statehood, people will demand, nationhood.. and there is
nothing wrong with that either.. nation states have been ever changing
concepts since historical records began.. India in it's current form
started existing after 1947.. apart from cricket and pakistan bashing,
there isn't any common unifying 'indianness' - even both of these
being a very recent phenomena.. hence at some point, india will
disintegrate, as it never existed.. may be that will be better for
uniform development of the underdeveloped parts of the current india
and more importantly if done democratically - by a referendum, it may
be a democratically correct step.. it's important to bear in mind,
that people can never be forced to do things against their free-will.

from:  MS
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 14:25 IST

Sir with due respect i want to know that don't you think dividing states is not a
solution of these ever raising problems. I mean we need to understand that
separation from other parts of India is only making many different rules and
rulers. you see once we made pakistan and bangladesh..millions of bangladeshi's
are still dependent of India in terms of getting employment, other country is still
playing foe..if as solution pakistan was seperated than why these fights and
constant problems? I am just 24 years old and have lived outside India for many
years i met many people from countries which were part of India 65 years back
and i have heard worst of thoughts from them about India and Indians. You never
know when these state division demands will change to want a seperate country,
current example is Maharashtra, if you can not speak marathi you don't have to
get in jobs there and you people don't follow constitution when local leaders
become God! We need to be unite not divided.

from:  Garima Shrivastava
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:54 IST

I read few comments where one talked about "Vibrant Bihar", "Able
Leader", "Muslim States", "Whopping Amount of Money"

"Vibrant Bihar" - Which Bihar are we talking about wasn't there a 950
crores fodder scam in 1980s in the combined state? It is not the
matter of Big State or small state that determine scams..

"Muslim States" - I am from Telangana regions so I will talk about it.
People of TG are not asking for separate based on Religion or Language
they are asking for a state because people of TG were deprived of
their jobs, self respect and resources

"Whopping Money" - This is the most stupidest I have read so far. How
do you expect to generate money without investing. Basically what you
are saying is because it will cost us money do nothing?

I believe writer's intention was to form small states based on
conditions and not based on religion or based on language....

from:  Satish
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:52 IST

Yes smaller states with greater autonomy is the need for a country like India with such a Huge population.
States on religious grounds should not be allowed at any cost, because if India proceeds with Identifying smaller states without this condition. Then movement of population on religious grounds cannot not avoided and this will not be restricted to only one religion. Already consolidation of population on religious grounds is taking place and attention is being diverted from this issues by pointing at irrelevant causes.
With smaller states, greater autonomy is the critical thing. Centers role should only be limited to Defense, external affairs and Intra states matters. Rest everything should be with respective state governments. Any type of rule of at center will be incompetent, because India is unique, the sooner we understand the better.

Present day setup is an incompetent one.

Praveen Nair.

from:  Praveen Nair
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:41 IST

smaller states is easy to theoretically true but take jharkhand a resourceful state as an example.....where its practicality is contradictory
also telangana case is different as they are asking the capital which is formed after decades of planning and lakes of crores of investment
another big issue is water

from:  mahesh
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:31 IST

This is a good theoretical argument but it fails when tested against reality. The demand for new states in the North East no longer meets the test of reasonableness. First, the population of the proposed states are so small that they would not meet any test of financial viability. Ofcourse, the test of financial viability does not appear in any of the lexicon of those that demand these states given the centre's policy of supporting 90% of a state budget in the North East by way of grants. For the tiny elite in the North East, this gusher of money from the centre is a never ending source of graft.
How tiny would these new states be? Many proposed new states just elect one MP to the Lok Sabha. This is classic divide and rule!
More troubling is the fragmentation of society created by this incessant demand for states. In Meghalaya, the Garos and the Khasis now do now want to live together. The Bodos have resorted to ethnic cleansing to create a majority in the areas they claim.

from:  Rajiv Baruah
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:22 IST

This is a very eloquent article and brings out clearly the logic
behind the demand for separate statehood which should not be
considered as a disintegration from the country. While many opponents
cite the continued backwardness of Jharkhand even after granting
statehood as an example, there can be no comparision between these two
provinces. It would be better to leave Telangana to decide its own
fate rather than trying to control it externally. Even Prime minister
Jawaharlal Nehru initially was skeptical of merging Telangana with
Andhra State, fearing a "tint of expansionist imperialism" in it. He
compared the merger to a matrimonial alliance having "provisions for
divorce" if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well.This
apprehension is only becoming concrete now.The centre is deliberately
testing the patience of an already laggard province by further
delaying their envisaged march towards progress.Those in power should
stop milking popular demands for their electoral benefits

from:  Malesh Gangani
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:22 IST

Sir, Formation of smaller states may be suitable where geographical
division is not disputed, as in the case of UP, Bihar etc.. But in the
case of Andhra Pradesh, it is a different story. The leader who
spearheaded the seperate state movement in 1969 could not bifurcate
himself after he became the Chief Minister of the State. Similary, a
person from the region became the Prime Minister of the country also.
But during his regime also, the State was not bifurcated. These things
amply goes to prove that division of AP State is some what trivial,
and not to be read on par with other States. Further, division of a
State should take place on more practicial considerations rather than
on hatred, vote bank politics.

from:  T Rajeswar Rao
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 13:20 IST

whatever suresh said is correct..i am not denying the problems of
telangana...but consider the other part of state too,...every one has
problems...more over Rayalaseema, part of AP, is worst backward one of the
most backward in we can say Telangana is far most developed
compare with other regions. but after the lot of discussions over on telangana people are saying its about sentiment. but
one thing is correct, politicians are the only reason behind the issue to
get the benifit of this....god only save our country.

from:  Babu
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 12:55 IST

An excellent article which brings out the analogies between the past
demand for a separate state of Andhra from former Madras which bore
fruition and the current demand for Telangana.

It precisely lays all the ghosts to rest and brings out a scientific
rationale for a smaller state: better governance.

A pestering internal problem would not help the cause of building a
stronger and equitable nation and the dilly-dallying of the current
government to gain either political or electoral gains makes matters
even worse.

This article provides a great relief to aspirants of Telangana since it
would help citizens of India to empathize with the people of Telangana.

- Thirumal

from:  Thirumal Ravula
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 12:36 IST

This is what my father late Baikadi Venkatakrishna Rao a well known
Kannada writer, journalist engaging in freelancing and a powerful
orator who was also a regular reader of ‘The Hindu’ till his last
breath on the 31st of January 1987 wrote in the special Deepavali
issue of 1950 of Prajamatha a Kannada weekly which is not in existence
now.”All round development of people of Karnataka is only possible
when the Kannada Nadu which is torn asunder among various provinces is
brought together. Need for linguistic provinces are more in the South
today. Separate provinces are needed for Maharashtra, Andhra,
Karnataka and Kerala. There doesn’t seem to be much demand for
Gujarath but due to the clout of its leaders a province of Gujarath is
likely to be formed without much noise. In South the largest language
group is of Tamils and they have Madras with them. Because of this
they are in a position to rule people speaking other languages.
Naturally they are not for linguistic states. Problems of non
existence of separate linguistic provinces are today faced by people
speaking Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam and North Indian leaders do not
have the will to understand it.” Later in the same article he quotes
Dhar committee report extensively to substantiate his views of need
for separate state of Karnataka. He has also quoted Sardar Patel’s
statement made in Bombay in 1946 “Contribution of Karnataka’s art,
culture and literature to the Indian culture is great. Kannada
speaking people in their language and culture are one family. They
have been struggling to come under a single administration since
1907.The attitude of present rulers (The British) is well known’. He
concludes the article by making a passionate plea to the Congress
leaders to consider forming a separate Karnataka. During 1948-1949 he
wrote a total no of 27 articles in various publications which is part
of book named ‘Baikadi’ published by Rashtrakavi Govinda Pai Reaserch
Centre of Udupi in 1999 on the need for separate Karnataka state.

from:  Baikadi Suryanarayana Rao
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 12:34 IST

well said. opponents of Telangana, for that matter states
reorganisation should come from their comfort zone. present power
structure and governance is dominated by certain sections, in response
marginalised sections are demanding for justice and proper
administration and share in Political processes.but not demanding
sepatate coutry. proponant of Telangana movement have shown their
complete faith in Indian Constitution and adopting complete peaceful
protest forms.rather the delaying tactics of the Union govt and
promises made by the home ministers both Chidambaram and Shinde, gives
the scope for weakaning of democratic functioning of the Political
institutions in this country.therefore as author has said they wouldn't
be any worry about national integrity. lets give them a chance to
realise their aspirations.

from:  santhosh
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:33 IST

though quality of governance and proximity to decision making bodies in
terms of region and population are not always go hand in hand, but there
is no harm in India to do so because of deteriorating central authority
and negligence to citizen due to it. at least we can create a formidable
police state if it is smaller!

from:  shaivraj singh
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:33 IST

What Mr.Guha has said seems to be pretty rational. However if we
consider the case of Bihar, which was broken out into Jahrkhand &
Bihar in the year 2000. The division has led to loss of both states.
Separate Bihar was stripped of all it's productive region and was left
over with just agricultural land to subsist on, Jharkhand on the other
hand got all the resources (minerals,dams) which are being ransacked
by gluttonous politicians (Madhu Koda is just one of many examples).
Bihar on the other hand is struggling despite sincere efforts of
Nitish Kumar. Had the states been united Bihar would have been flying
higher than "Vibrant Gujrat", under the able guidance of Nitish Kumar,
who is struggling to change the Lalu Yadav's era notions built for
Bihar and get the industries to invest in Bihar.

from:  Mayank Sharan
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:29 IST

I don't agree with this point of view since i think creating new
states only consumes whopping sums of money in the construction of
numerous necessary state buildings (which were already available in
the parent state) and paying salary to another new cabinet of
ministers and of course their thousands of crores heavy budget which
they are never gonna use honestly for public welfare. What we need for
a developed nation is not smaller and even smaller states but the
leaders and officers who work and spend the funds honestly for the
purpose for which they exist. Creating new states will only create (we
already have examples) a new series of scams and petty regional
politics. Many developed countries have much larger and diverse states
than ours but they are prospering. Think why.....

from:  ariba
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:22 IST

What Mr Guha is proposing seems correct and reasonable from the prism of intellectual and academic view point. No doubt small states have the potential for better governance and hence ameliorate the problems facing the people.

The danger however will be where to put a full stop and how. A student of History will recall that a small state like Kerala comprised of geographical and logical regional kingdoms like Kochi, Travancore, Palghat etc. Also the people of Mallapuram (a muslim majority district created by Karunakaran as part of congress
Vote Bank Politics) may ask for a separate muslim state. Same can happen in N.E where there is heavy influx of "BANGLADESHI MUSLIMS".
Thus we can expect demands from such areas also
Then we may land up with 100+ states in India and this will definitely lead to chaos and confusion.
Can we manage such a chaotic situation.

from:  n s parameswaran
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:20 IST

A wonderful article, and a must to read by every Seemandhra person[specifically every telugu].

from:  vipul
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:11 IST

Mr.Guha's articles have always been enlightening and profound. this one
in particular proves through sheer logic the futility of holding on to
the past and accordingly asks us to prudently move forward and change
with the changing times. the centre should help facilitate this for
better governance and other cultural factors.

from:  sushant singh
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 11:09 IST

The article suggests that creating smaller administrative zones will improve governance. On this, some questions need addressing. First, some states which are relatively smaller in area and population have existed right from independence. Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that such states are any better governed than national average? Quite the contrary in fact. Second, recent evidence on improvement in economic standards of the peoples on creation of smaller states isn't a pretty picture. Jharkhand and Chattisgarh have become hotbeds of naxal activity. Worse, Telangana could add seamless expanse to this geo territory. The leaders who are likely to head governance for these new administrative zones are really the same greedy, ill-visioned ones who rule rest of the country. Real change will need establishing robust institutions and accountability in governance. Merely fine tuning administrative zones is unlikely to yield results.

from:  Prasad
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:52 IST

Smaller states, in general, may make sense but Telangana is a
different case altogether. It is all about Hyderabad.

from:  YSK
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45 IST

It is true that the bifurcation of the states shall give a scope for effective governance but at what cost is to be contemplated. Because, in the case of Telangana movement, it is majorly the political vested interests (the hot-bed of Telangana demand is "Hyderabad") that are driving the political parties in demanding for a separate state. Ideally, the single-most cause for demanding a separate state should be to cater justice to the backward sections in those areas, which has been sidelined. The sentiments of the people are being encashed by these political parties in their demand. Surprisingly, no single political party has proposed any roadmap in how to develop the Telangana region and its people - whether in using the existing resources or getting foreign investments or implementation of existing css (centrally sponsored schemes) or proposing new schemes - if the Centre accedes to the demand of separate Telangana. This should to be one of the key factors in the centre's decision.

from:  Raghav K V K
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:43 IST

I fail to understand how breaking a state into two will help. Even from a economic stand point it doesnt make sense. Consider the case of AP, where the maximum GDP comes from Hyderabad. Once bifurcated, it will loose revenue from coastal area (agriculture and others) and may even loose man power advantage of a single state. And river sharing is some thing that needs to be sorted out.
A serious study has to be done for states re organisation.(unlike Sri Krishna on Telangana)

from:  Nandu
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:26 IST

As usual, an excellent analysis from Mr Guha. We do need a second States reorganization commission as the population in our larger states are too unwieldy for effective governance. Moreover, carving out multiple states out of the same linguistic area would reduce the menace of language chauvinism too..

from:  Vineeth
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:24 IST

Off late I was reading your book PATRIOTS AND PARTISANS and convinced again
that history can told only by RCG. But I wonder after reading the above
article, how easily distinguished individuals too come to conclusions and
frame opinions.In the present context, the author missed thoughts on
capital city Hyderabad. Also if lack of development or backwardness are the
issues, I think its across the country.I as a witness connect it to
individual political aspirations, political unemployment, false emotions
and prejudice. Majority opinions are not always true, but statistically.

from:  viswanadha vinayak
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:21 IST

A fresh insight into the Telangana issue. I have been following the
Telangana issue in the Hindu since a quite few days. Though most of
them vouched for a separate state but none provided a rationale behind
it with more clarity than Mr.Guha. Yes, I do agree that after 65 years,
we won't feel insecure about integrity of India. Taking into
consideration the discrimination of Telangana people it's wise to let
them govern themselves if they think they will prosper that way. Our
aim is a developed India not boast unity if it's forced. And,the states
which are demanding separate governance have distinct culture and their
own identity. Smaller states will surely lead to better governance as
people would behave more responsibly as now they are responsible for
their own fate.

from:  Tejashri Mali
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 10:05 IST

India will be a more stable and viable nation if maximum POSSIBLE decentralisation is achieved. Not only does the current balance of powers within states need to be changed, but the process of state formations/amalgamations should be transparent with minimum intervention from interests outside of the proposed state.

The only transparent system is a public iniated plebecit or referundum governed by new rules formulated into the Indian Constitution.

from:  mahmut maha
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 09:59 IST

in the name of smaller states we have had Bihar and other states being divided...but
has it resulted in better governance....If the issue is that of governance then the
institutions already available will is the failure if these institutions that's is
the reason for backwardness is the quality of governance that is poor and there is
no guarantee that a smaller state will have good quality governance

from:  Mahesh Tumpalla
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 09:29 IST

The real problems in India today have to do with the quality of
governance. Smaller states may be one way to address this problem.-
While agreeing fully with this view I suggest that water of rivers
flowing through multiple states should be in central / concurrent list
with a central Commission to control, develop and disburse flows . Only
Ground water should remain in States Control. Similarly some Central
security force should be stationed in every district and major town to
control situation if arises and beyond capacity of normal police.

from:  Atma Gandhi
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 09:12 IST

I appreciate your brief narration stating all the history. But you have ignored few vital points regarding Telangana. 1969 was a true Telangana agitation which led to Leadership change making PV narasimha Rao from Telangana and introduction of Mulki rules. That solved Telangaites problem, which means there is no other reason for agitation.
The introduction of mulki rules that favor Telanganites triggered 1972's Jai Andhra movement, followed by which mulki rules was abolished and a 6-point formula was introduced that provisions fair share for all regions according to population and area. The 1972 Jai Andhra movement was so intense that the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira gandhi had to give a statement in Parliament. Please refer to that fantastic speech where she talked about the Nation's priority and Unity.

from:  Suresh Narasimha
Posted on: Jan 30, 2013 at 07:08 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor



Recent Article in Lead

Rakesh Sood

Changed variables, same equation

Though no stranger to India, Ashraf Ghani will now be under scrutiny for what he says about how he visualises India-Afghanistan relations. He will be engaging with a new Indian leadership that has displayed no anxiety about the fact that he waited for six months before visiting New Delhi »