Although the arguments put forward by G. Haragopal and Ravi Komarraju (“Telangana: the great divide,” Nov. 29) highlight different perspectives of the Telangana issue, they make clear that there is an urgent need to refer the issue to a broader platform like the States Reorganisation Commission.
Non-state actors are causing much fear and confusion among settlers from other regions. Second, the creation of a new State is a huge monetary burden. The issue is a classic example of how divisive politics can cast its shadow on an otherwise progressive State.
The views expressed by the two eminent professors point to the two sides of the same coin. Agreed, the creation of a separate Telangana is not a panacea for all the problems of the region. But it is too late to change tack and go back on the promise of statehood for Telangana, without risking violent upheaval. Unfortunately, leaders of Seemandhra are also not providing a positive and constructive direction to the people of their region. If the present trend of leaders inciting people continues, Andhra Pradesh will suffer with or without the division of the State.
Maj. Gen. A.B. Gorthi (retd.),
The essence of democracy is the right to equality and equal opportunities. Therefore, one cannot understand why the political class of Telangana has failed to live up to the expectations of the constituencies they have represented and letting the problem fester. Is division of a State the only solution to set right historical wrongs? Can’t we address these issues unitedly? Second, what is the way out for subregional aspirations if majority rule stifles the voice of the minority and deprives them of resources and livelihood?
Whichever way you look at it, the political class has discredited itself. In the race for political mileage, it has promoted enmity and hatred among the two regions. Ordinary citizens on either side will now pay a huge price in terms of livelihood issues, freedom and equality. It is saddening that a progressive State like Andhra Pradesh has come to this sorry state of affairs. One only hopes that it does not affect the unity of the nation.
Sri Krishna Prasad K.,
Article 371 D is in no way inferior to Article 3. In fact, after two powerful movements in 1969 and 1972, Article 371D was included in the Constitution after careful consideration and serious deliberations by the then Congress government. Article 3 and Article 371D are not competitive but complementary.