The Hindu has argued editorially that a just and sustainable solution to the Telangana issue can be found within an undivided Andhra Pradesh. Here is an Op-Ed article by a BJP legislator that presents a contra-argument.
In the winter of 1953, the Fazal Ali Commission was set up to reorganise the States of the Indian Republic. Its recommendation to go about creating States on linguistic lines, indirectly paved the way for the creation of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra was formed from the northern districts of the erstwhile Madras state and the southern districts of the erstwhile Hyderabad state -- though the committee itself did not advocate such a merger and was against it.
Fifty-six winters later, the very concept of the creation of States based on linguistic lines has become passé. We need to look for fresh parameters for the creation of States, and that has to be based on holistic development on economic and social lines for better administration and management. This fact has been proven with the creation of Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand from Bihar and Uttaranchal from Uttar Pradesh.
Two issues that seem to be at the centre of the contention between the two regions of Andhra Pradesh is the future of Hyderabad and the repercussions in terms of the sharing of river waters from the completed and planned irrigation projects after the division of the State. Any entity, political or otherwise, that is able to find pragmatic solutions to this conundrum would not only earn the respect of the people of the State but also help set a precedent in the matter of contentious State divisions in the future.
Economics of small States
The case for small States can be argued with two parameters of macroeconomic statistics from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. The first parameter is the percentage increase in Gross Domestic Product for States between 1999-2000, when the smaller States were created, and 2007-2008. India’s overall GDP increased by 75 per cent during this time period. During the same period, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal recorded more than 100 per cent, 150 per cent and 180 per cent increase respectively. These rates were much above the rate at which national GDP increased. This clearly indicates that the recent creation of smaller States was a step in the right direction.
Experts have often argued that the creation of smaller States has been at the expense of the States they were created from. For all its lack of governance, Uttar Pradesh grew by more than 21 per cent of the national average during this time period.
The second parameter, the percentage contribution of States to national GDP, helps negate the myth of smaller States growing at the expense of the States they are created from. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh each contributed the same amount to national GDP. While the contributions of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh increased by 0.01 per cent and 0.06 per cent respectively, Uttar Pradesh’s contribution to national GDP increased by 1.2 per cent during the same time period. This is more than Chhattisgarh’s percentage increase in the contribution of 0.64 per cent to national GDP, the highest increase among the three newly created smaller States.
Capital politics
Hyderabad is an integral part of Telangana and a Telangana State without Hyderabad as the capital is inconceivable. However, the militant rhetoric of some political parties has made people of other areas feel unwelcome, creating an air of mistrust among the Telugu-speaking people of various regions. This is not only constitutionally illegal but also extremely foolish as it affects the image of Brand Hyderabad. Everybody who has come to Hyderabad in search of a better quality of life must be protected. Rhetorical slogans such as Telangana waalon jaago, Andhra waalon bhago gives the impression of an exclusionist movement that forces people of the non-Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh out of Hyderabad rather than a movement where the people of Telangana want greater autonomy for their region. Significantly, when Maharashtra and Gujarat were created from the then Bombay state on the recommendation of the States Reorganisation Commission, there was fear about Mumbai losing its importance as a financial nerve-centre as a lot of investment in Mumbai had been made by Gujarati business people. The creation of two separate States did not halt Mumbai’s rapid development. In fact, it additionally paved the way for the development of Ahmedabad and Surat as alternative financial centres. Hyderabad can emulate the same model. As in the past 400 years, the city can continue to welcome people with open arms rather than close its gates to fresh talent and creative ideas.
The people of the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions feel that the benefits reaped from Hyderabad must be accessible to all those who have been equal stakeholders in the city’s development. The solution to this is not alternative models such as according Hyderabad the status of a Union Territory or making Hyderabad a joint capital for the States carved out of present-day Andhra Pradesh. These solutions are just not practical. A better approach would be to plan a special financial package for the development of a new State capital for the non-Telangana region. Pragmatism would dictate that the special package be funded through some form of cess on the city of Hyderabad for a limited period rather than running to large financial institutions for loans, as has been proposed by some political entities.
Social dynamics of water
About 70 per cent of the catchment area of the Krishna and close to 80 per cent of the catchment area of the Godavari is located in the Telangana region. Across the world, water distribution and sharing schemes between two areas is calculated on the basis of the percentage of the catchment area that lies in the region. Other factors that influence water-sharing accords is the population of a given region, the projected usage of water for industry and the domestic population, and the physical contours of the region through which the river flows.
Take the instance of the Godavari, where the areas planned for large dams in the Telangana have not been found feasible for various reasons. As the Sriramsagar project on the Godavari already exists, it is not feasible to build another large dam on the Godavari until after the Pranahitha tributary joins the Godavari. There is not enough water to be harnessed on a continuous basis for the project to be economically feasible if the dam is built before the Pranahitha joins the main river. The Inchampally project, a national project whose benefits are to be shared between the States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, was one such large project that was proposed. Though the project was conceived a long time ago, it has run into typical issues that are usually associated with projects that have multiple States as stakeholders. Though Andhra Pradesh, by large, is the main beneficiary of the project, the project plan estimates more forest land being submerged in Maharashtra (47.7 per cent) than in Andhra Pradesh (29.9 per cent; all land in Telangana). An equal amount of cultivable land will be submerged in Chhattisgarh (41.8 per cent) and Andhra Pradesh (42.2 per cent; all land in Telangana). And, more villages that belong to Maharashtra (100) will be submerged as compared to Andhra Pradesh (65). This has obviously made the other States reluctant to move as quickly as Andhra Pradesh on this project.
The link canal that has been planned between Inchampally and Nagarjuna Sagar that is proposed to irrigate the regions of Telangana in between also involves prohibitive costs as a result of the 107-metre lift that is required for the water to reach the Nagarjuna Sagar. The lift itself will require a separate hydro-electric power project for the project to be feasible. Commonsense and pragmatism would have ensured that a project in Kanthamapalli or Kaleswaram be pursued. Additionally, three smaller step- dams between Yellampalli and Sriramsagar must be devised with a realistic State-level river-interlinking plan. Inchampally is not an exception, but the trend in how political leaders across the aisle in Telangana have been caught up in the big-projects-to-line-my-pockets mentality at the cost of the development of the region by looking at smaller, realistic projects to execute.
The finale
The Telangana agitation is the only such movement in India that involves a capital city located in the region that is fighting for separation from the main State. This clearly reflects on the lack of governance and civic administration in this area as the benefits of having a State capital in the hinterland have not trickled down to other areas in that region.
Smaller States still need a good and vibrant administration to be recipes for success. Chhattisgarh is a fine example of how an effective administration could turn around a State in all aspects of development. The development that has happened in the Chhattisgarh region from Independence till 2000 has in fact been less than the development that has taken place from the time a new State was created in 2000 till now. The first Telangana Chief Minister would have done a great service to the infant State should he take a prescription from Chhattisgarh’s most famous Ayurvedic doctor.
(G. Kishan Reddy is the floor leader of the BJP in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. The data and statistical inputs in this article are from Yudofud Public Strategies, www.yudofud.com.)
Keywords: Telangana issue, TRS chief, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, first Telangana CM, G. Kishan Reddy, BJP, AP Assembly, Fazal Ali Commission, Andhra Pradesh, floor leader,
Just take the example of Europe- most of the countries are equivalent to the states of India and they have been faring well together as the EU. Linguistic basis of state creation was an immediate result of obtaining independence. But in today's competitive world, i think we need to go ahead with creation of new states as it would encourage faster pace of development, ensure separate budget and resource allocation and increase the pace of the progress of the country and its citizens. Jharkand and Chattisgarh is talked in above comments, what about Uttarakhand? The problems in Jharkand and Chattisgarh is due to poor governance by the INC since independence.
A very lame argument for the state separation by Mr. Kishen Reddy. It is very immature to look only at GDP stats to come to a conclusion on the Telangana issue. Of course we cannot expect more from him. Several other issues such as the ones discussed in this article have to be discussed.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/12/12/stories/2009121250290800.htm
He fails to explain how a smaller state, with the CM, MLAs as power centers is going to make administration more feasible.
I am with the opinion that there should be a separate statehood for Telangana; Nothing wrong if we have three or four Telugu speaking states.
This is to be done immediately to maintain the social harmony among Telugus.
As Telugus we should not be divided.
KCR Factor will be eliminated very soon after the state is formed.
It will be only a line in the map
Actually we are not concentrating on developing the other parts of AP like VIZAG, KAKINADA, RAJAHMUNDRY,VIJYAWADA, ONGOLE, NELLORE, TIRUPUATI, KADAPA AND KURNOOL
Telangana should be formed as soon as possible!! If not the people of this region may lose the trust in the Indian Democracy and that may lead to another problem like increase of Naxalism again in Telangana region.
No solutions worked for Telangana (even CM post) and we (people of Telanagana) think the one and only solution is India's new state "Telangana".
Jai Telangana! Jai Hind!
Yes, they are the ones who gets mostly benefited in the future in Telangana state. Telangana state will be a reality soon.
Was it right for students to get involved in Telangana agitation?
As long as the people benefit from the creation of a seperate Telangana state,there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be done.Considering the kind of politicians we have in India,it is somehow difficult for me to believe that the formation of a separate state will bring instant relief to the under-developed region. Rather it would result in a government that is purely controlled by regional elements. Also,the administrative costs will rise. This unnecessary expenditure could very well be used for development.
Before forming a separate Telangana, the borders of the state must be determined.What is the criteria for defining the boundaries of Telangana?
I belong to Andhra region, but i feel people of Telangana region are expolited since past 50 years. Now the only justice we can do to them is giving their state to them.
Indeed a nice to article and well explained most of the key issues. Telangana state is to be carved out immediately with the best interest of both Telangana and other region.
The fundamental fallacy of the smaller State argument is that the studies just compare GDP and other economic indicators of a larger State with a smaller one. No emphasis is put to understand the difference in governance and systems. Hence, concluding that its only from small geography does not hold true. The most pertinent question that arises for me is why was there no reference to other 'development indices' in the article that were also the part of the decadal analysis. Would that have diluted the biased argument? By the way, incase the politicians are missing what the people of this country are expecting, here is a refresher. They are in need of higher disposable income and not a non-cash GDP per capita.
I think if we really want know what people want then hold a referendum on this issue.
This is the second response from Yudofud Public Strategies. Yudofud helped Mr. Kishan Reddy with this article. We thought it was necessary to clarify the recommendations of the Fazal Ali Commission in the SRC as a lot of people had varied views on it. Para 386 in the SRC states the following "After taking all these factors into consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it will be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if, for the present, the Telangana area is constituted into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by a two-third majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification." From this it can be concluded that:
(1.) The SRC opposed the unification of Andhra and Telangana, and preferred them to be separate entities as described above
(2.) The provision to unify was left to the Telangana people only after the 1961elections if a 2/3rd majority of Telangana legislators felt it necessary
(3.) The clincher for unification was not the SRC recommendation but the Gentlemen’s agreement between B. Gopal Reddy, CM of Andhra and B. Rama Krishna Rao, CM of Hyderabad which was violated from the outset
(4.) In the Indian express dated 17th October 1953, Pt. Nehru, felt the merger had a “tint of expansionist imperialism” in it and thus feared it
(5.) In the Indian express dated 6th March 1956, Pt. Nehru described the merger as a marriage between “an innocent girl to a mischievous boy and therefore if both the regions fail to go together they could separate like wife and husband”
So, clearly the Fazal Ali commission did not recommend the unification but suggested them to be separate entities
This is a response from Yudofud. Yudofud helped Mr. Kishan Reddy with the article. We thought it was necessary to make an intermediate clarification based on some of the comments that people have expressed.
The smaller state argument based on GDP is in line with similar arguments by reputed magazines and is not new. The India today Magazine editor Prabhu Chawla’s clarified when asked abut his stance on Telangana - We have no specific policy on Telangana issue. However, we are in favour of smaller states because it makes good economic sense.
Amarnath K. Menon in his article in the India Today on December 17th 2009, titled Dividends of division argues “The last exercise in creating small states-Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand by the BJP-led NDA in 2000-has worked, though the storylines are not similar, and decadal analysis of development indices of the compact regions reveal they perform better than the larger ones ... According to the 11th Plan document, approved by the National Development Council, these three states have achieved growth rates far exceeding the targets set for the 10th Plan period .
Just because the India Today has a similar view does not make Mr. Reddy’s argument right but it should at least put to rest the questions some have raised about using GDP as a factor for measuring development or economic success as it is not Mr. Reddy alone who is making this argument.
Mr.Kishan Reddy tries to justify the formation of new states just by citing GDP as the reason. He has failed to understand an essential point that there are limitations on GDP in judging the health of an economy. GDP counts work that produces no net change or that results from repairing harm. For example, rebuilding after a natural disaster or war may produce a considerable amount of economic activity and thus boost GDP. This accelerated economic activity after formation of new state is the increased GDP we are seeing. Moreover, the GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption. For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth. If Telangana lies undeveloped from 1956, what are the MLAs and MPs of that region doing? Aren't MLAs and MPs elected for developement of regions? What is the need for electing an MLA and MP if they can't develop the region they represent? Go ask MPs and MLAs of Telangana region to release a white paper on how they have spent the funds allocated to their constituencies over the past 15 years and what developement activities they have undertaken. If everyone starts demanding separate state for under-developed regions,India would end up with close to 800 states and we need not be wondering if someday we would break India into two or three countries.
As a Hyderabadi, I see absolutely no reason to pay a cess to 'develop' a new urban center. I pay cess to improve my civic amenities, not to create new cities just because certain political leaders decided to have some fun. Creating cities is no joke; you can build a set of buildings, but as Canberrans would agree, it would take decades, even centuries, for urban-centers to emerge. Besides, the main problem here isn't the investments, it's the revenue. 60% of AP's state tax-revenue comes from the Greater Hyderabad region; effectively, Hyderabadi tax-payers have been subsidizing the state for the past 20-odd years. Uttarandhra and improverished parts of Rayalaseema will suffer greatly if their revenue-sources are cut-off. Like it or not, states in India are separate economies; it's the splitting of a highly centralized state that causes the maximum difficulty. Additionally, I find the writer's statistics not right. I know we calculate SGDP's, but since when did we start calculating intra-state GDP's? How do you get figures for specific regions before they became states? More critically, how would he assure us that the model he specified will happen in AP as well? AP, Bihar and UP are different economies with their own individual idiosyncrasies; as I said, AP's economy is highly focussed on Greater Hyderabad, which wasn't the case with Lucknow for UP or Patna for Bihar. With its mineral wealth, between Bihar and Jharkhand, Jharkhand was the richer area. I'd have a lot more respect for the author if he came out and told us the real reason for splitting the state, to create more VIP positions . Nothing wrong with wanting more power - active enfranchisement is definitely legitimate - but it'd be great if the politicians are open about it. At least it'd have stopped some poor misled students from committing suicides.
We can justify a movement when it has support of the people and youngsters ready to give up lives emotionally for the sake of it. Telengana and 'Jai Andhra' movements fall into category. What is this strange movement called 'Samaikyandhra', which is an 'anti-movement' rather!! Enough of cheating people of Telengana. Discuss the contentious issues like Hyderabad and water sharing for the creation of Telangana. Imposing a cess on Hyderbad to generate funds for new capital of Andhra seems a good idea. Remember, nobody need to worry about their jobs or properties if Telengana is created.
In this era of corporate merger and de-merger, splitting of states will help satisfy the ego and encourage harmonious living, let us act fast to find a amicable solution before it becomes too late and self destructive.
If people really wanted Telangana state that would have reflected in the election. According to the verdict, the process should move on. It is clear that the voters really did not think about the separate state as the result of TRS were disastrous. Now it is clear that the outburst seen is because of a few politicians and not really from the people. If the demand is from people, it will be seen in the next elections. Waiting for 2 or 3 years in a very serious issue like this is very reasonable. Opinions of 1 or 2 has no place in our democratic way of arriving solutions. Coming to the article, It can also be shown with some statistics that the same is achieved in larger states.
Excellent article by Kishan Reddy. Telangana was a separate state for around eight years before merging it with Andhra. Vested interests and an attitude of 'expansionist imperialism', rightly identified by Pandit Nehru were the cause for the merger. Hyderabad was the fifth largest city in the country with all the infrastructure before the merger in 1956 and it is still fifth largest city even today. And the infrastucture was developed from taxes payed by Telangana people. We all felt the pinch when USA said that they discovered the medicinal properties of Turmeric in around 1996, similar is the feeling of the Telangana people when people of other region say that they developed Hyderabad. Just demographical expansion by people from other regions does not mean actual development. Regarding Hyderabad, I would like to quote 'He,who sows the seed,reaps the crop!' It is not fair to blame politicians from Telangana for the underdevelopment of other 9 districts.Even though a couple of legislators from Telangana became chief ministers in the past none were allowed to administer the state for more than two years. Bills in favour of Telangana region are hard to pass in the assembly as even the support of all 119 members of legislative assembly from Telangana out of total 294 will always be a minority decision.
It's apparent that Indians are higly individualistic. Everybody has his/her own views but unfortunatley there will be no collective effort on what is good for India. Maharashtrians say this is only for Maharashtra, Kashmiris say they own it and now Telangana. Where can an Indian go? Why should I choose a side. We have elected a goverment and are paying taxes to protect the sovereignty. It's a pity that there are only few leaders in India, the rest are just politicians. Telangana issue is an example of how India still can be divided easily.
I must appreciate Mr. Kishan Reddy's effort to bring about a balanced argument to the whole issue without any rhetoric whatsoever. Other pro Telangana leaders actually haven't said much except having used divisive rhetoric based on hate rather than articulating thoughts through sound reasoning.
Nikhil, somewhere one has to drawn a line. Telangana comprises 10 disctricts and once it is carved as a separate state it will be the 16th largest state in the country. There would be ample growth of developement. Your argument does not make any sense. Kishan Reddy wants a seperate telangana. Please do not make assumptions or insult the Telangana movement.
After hearing a lot about the Fazal Ali Commission, I decided to read the contents and found that the report over all is for the Unification of Telangana with Andhra, though it expressed some apprehensions of the people of Telangana. After reading the SRC report the impression I got was that the leaders for Telangana knowingly or unknowingly are only highlighting the apprehensions presented in the report as the final recommendations and misleading the people particularly the youth of Telangana saying that the unification was carried out against the wishes of the people. The very next day I find Kishan Reddy gets added to this unfortunate voices. This lapse in his knowledge makes me believe that the other statistics provided by him do not give a complete perspective. It may be better for the media as also The Hindu to publish the recommendations related to Andhra Pradesh of the Fazal Ali commission in the right perspective.
If your language is mocked at in your own movies,if your festivals are ignored, if your culture is looked down,if your dialict is never promoted, if your heroes are intentionally forgotten, if you are told all the time that you need to be developed by some body else, you will understand the agony! You will understand why Telangana is demanded! Statistics and developmental talks can't accommodate the aspirations of the people.
If people really need to divide the state we can agree with them. Now the main point is Hyderabad. It was physcially part of Telangana.
Forming a separate state is not at all the final solution to the problems of the Telangana region. Claims by the leaders will not at all work. There are many districts in Rayalaseema which are far more backward compared to the most backward district of Telangana. I disagree with Mr Kishan Reddy's article as it presents one sided view of the problems.
Statistics can be presented the way we want them to. I think this article by Mr. Kishan Reddy is an excellent effort in misrepresentation of statistics. I agree with Mr. Rohit's comments mentioned above. I would also recommend 'youdofud' to recheck their statistics before putting them to such use on sensitive topics.
I would like to ask Mr. Reddy whether he will tolerate any movement for the division of Telangana state as he says that smaller states help in development? It may be true that GDP has increased after the formation of new states, but how many people living BPL or with less than Rs. 20 a day have been benefited by this?
I'll definitely agree with what Mr. Kishan Reddy has mentioned on the Telangana topic, but I have only one question for the politicians: when they know so much about Telangana and they are protesting for a separate state now, what have they done all these years to the Telangana districts? The political parties which opposed Telangana in the year 2004 and 2009 have started fighting for the separate state. So what does it prove? Any time it is only the public which is affected by the strikes. Recently a University student has committed suicide for the so-called Telangana state. My sincere request to the public is only one thing: stop killing your self and start eradicating the ills that afflict the country.
Jai Telangana. I agree with Kishan Reddy's opinion. Telagana is inevitable and very much needed.
A very good article indeed. People should realize the need for Telangana. Students are sacrificing their lives and their studies. It's time to bring a change in the lives of Telangana people. Government should notice that Telangana doesn't just mean TRS. Telangana is a right, a feeling, a freedom, a wish of millions of hearts.
I strongly appeal to the leaders of all political parties not to mislead the innocent people of Andhra Pradesh. A final decision can be and should be made only through consensus. Splitting the state affects all three regions. So, how can a decision be made as per the wishes of the representatives of a single region? Splitting the state and making Hyderabad the capital of a single region benefits that region alone. Offering a special financial package for the development of a new State capital for the other regions is absurd. Telangana has the largest area, with 1,14800 km2. Will the leaders of Telangana accept a financial package for the development of their own new state capital? If this is not acceptable, how can they expect the people of other regions to agree to some financial packages in lieu of Hyderabad? The majority of people in Andhra Pradesh wish for a united state. In a democratic form of government, should the decisions not be made through consensus and in accordance to the wishes of all the people in the state. A majority of development in Telangana was concentrated in and around Hyderabad. But, are the leaders of the region not to blame for being incapable of showing the integrity and the leadership to develop the whole region? Instead, have they not been able to increase their own personal wealth over the past few decades? Even now, instead of aiming for the development of the region, are they not focusing their attention to bandhs, rasta rokos, and student agitations, which affect the livelihood of so many people of all walks of life, while benefiting their own political agenda? Finally, I find it funny, the argument that this agitation was being fought for 50yrs and so, a separate state should be granted. Don't you think that the agitation in Kashmir was for more than 50 yrs. So, is it a good idea to grant them what they wish? Is it not better on the other hand to focus on the collective good of all the people and try to achieve what hasn't been achieved as yet - the development of all the underdeveloped regions of the state?
Lack of development is due to politicians' incompetence. The solution should be ACCOUNTABILITY from them. Creation of more states only produces more politicians, not better Governance. In this case of split and in future bifurcations, politicians will prevail.
Totally Agree.....We need smaller states. Look at Bihar...It has now become the flagship state of India for development and good governance.
The blame for the backwardness of Telangana should go to its people for repeatedly electing their representatives. Any talk further should be on how we all can make it better to the people of Telegana in an undivided State.
Thanks for publishing this contra view article. If you go for a separate state, please understand that these local looters will stay on and will continue to loot. The same inefficient, corrupt people are everywhere - in Telangana, Andhra and Rayalaseema and all over India. Remember, if a lot of people do want to have a separate Telangana, then, yes, you have to find a good way to make it happen. But, not based on misplaced hopes and accusations.
Telangana can develop far better, if it gets separated. What we have seen in post-NTR era is a kind of crony capitalism that started to flourish in Andhra Pradesh. Chandrababu Naidu did his bit while it reached a new high during YSR's reign. National-level firms and MNCs are discriminated against Andhra industrialists. Telangana as a state would welcome industrialists from across the country.
Absolutely one-sided and factually distorted article. I wonder why The Hindu publishes such articles! Regional development boards with sufficient funds and autonomy will be the best possible solution. This can solve the developmental problems efficiently and people can stay united. There are a number of advantages of larger states and the article does not mention even one of them! Telangana is a case of failed political leadership. People were always united. A classic example is the famous Telangana movement against Nizam. It is the politicians, in order to cover-up their failures and gain political mileage, who try to create differences by giving these kind of arguments.
The article presents one sided view of the problem.I disagree with many issues raised by Mr. Reddy. First, SRC has never opposed unification. In fact for the greater benefit of three regions it suggested centrally located Hyderabad as the capital and outlined pros and cons of bringing all Telugu speaking regions as unified state.It only presented the apphrehensions of backward Telangana regions as fears that they might be exploited by enterprenueral Andhraites. Secondly, regarding the lack of development- in fact most of development has taken place in Telangana region like world class airport in Hyderabad, IIT Medak, Medical colleges, Agricultural Universities,Film City, Hitech City, Pharam Industry etc( of course in and around Hyderabad). If underdevelopment is the only reason for bifurcation then regions of Northern Andhra- Vizianagaram, Srikakulam were more underdeveloped than Telangana regions. The argument by the writer that expolitation and underdevelopment have revived the separate state demand is absolutely misleading. In fact these learned politicians should use their intellectual wisdom to come out with innovative solution to this problem of regional disparities.I do not see anything justified in terms of expoitation of river waters by non telangana regions particularly based on the Catchment area criteria. Sensible thinking clearly tells us that it's the fertility of land and cultivable area that dicatates the water resource usages and allocations. I appreciate efforts of The Hindu in publishing different views on bifurcation of AP. This effort will surely open the eyes of intellectuals in both the regions.
I feel that the GDP statistics shown by the author is incomplete without the statistics of these states(MP,UP and Bihar) before the division.Had the GDP been increasing before also, the GDP parameter taken by the author in support of smaller states is not sufficent. The need of the hour is to discuss more on what exactly is the hindrance for development of Telanagan region for these many years and is the division of the state the only solution to overcome it? I agree with The Hindu's argument that a sustainable solution can be found within an undivided Andhra Pradesh.
Please don't publish such articles.
With abundant resources, Telangana area has lacked minimum development. This is the total failure of the Centre to ensure people get their due. Telangana separation is the only answer for its development.
How can the failure and incompetency of the MLAs and MPs of Telangana region in serving the people of their region termed as looting from leaders of other region? It is nothing but heinous political opportunism of all the political parties of all the regions responsible for such a sorry state of affairs in A.P.
While you are at it, why not divide Telangana into 3 or 4 parts. This way you ensure better local administration/growth and also prempt any future possibility of one region blaming others of theft/looting/exploting. Anyway quite a few leaders of Telangana have made the argument that Telangana is larger than 18 other states.
Here is a typical politician trying to go with the flow. In the world order today, whoever shouts and talks the most seems to be the winner.
I hope the solution to the core problem may not be addressed by division of state and I go with The Hindu's opinion 'solution can be found in united Andhra'. If we go according to Mr Reddy, what about Kadapa, Ananthapoor, Chittoor, Prakasam, Nelloor where no river hardly exists? Where should they depend for water resources, for drinking at least? Initially Telangana leaders were saying the cause for separation was underdevelopement of the region when compared to Andhra, Rayalseema regions. But when faced with sharp criticism from the leaders of backward regions of costal and Seema, they are saying that the movement is all about self respect.
I completely disagree with Kishan Reddy and I'll stand by The Hindu's opinion that a solution can be found in undivided Andhra Pradesh. I wonder how the leaders of Telangana could say that the undevelopement of the region is because of the people of other regions. What have they been doing for the last 50 years in legislatures?
I suppose the extra-ordinary growth witnessed by these smaller states is a also due to the fiscal stimulus they received during the formation. Equitable development is a function of good governance and efficient systems. I do not see the case for smaller geography.
Articles published in The Hindu try to present both views and this article favours Telangana. However, almost all of these can be rejected immediately. The quoted growth rate of Jharkand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal are fine, but how does one know what was the growth rate of these regions prior to the separate state formation? If there is a proof that the growth rate after separate state formation was significantly higher than the growth rate when these regions were not separated, only then there is merit in this argument. One can reach conclusions only after comparison of comparable things.
Telangana state should and must become reality soon as people of this region are neglected in all aspects, for example the Nizam Sugar Factory which is the 2nd biggest sugar factory in the Asian continent and first in India in the Nizamabad District was privatised and became a small plant many thousand people lost their jobs though they were capable of doing the job. Our state faces lack of sugar, and sugar prices are sky high.
Statements given by certain so-called top political leaders generate lot of doubts whether they should at all be called leaders. They claim small states lead to development etc. Are they trying to fool the people? Small countries also often show fast development. If that is so, will these leaders also suggest breaking the country into smaller countries? If they are really interested in development of any region, they should opt for a separate development council and not a separate state. A bigger state /country has a better stability to withstand the up downs in world economic conditions or climatic conditions.
Almost half of AP's MLAs and MPs come from the Telangana region. I wonder how come they failed for 56 years to lobby for any development in their region. So, is it the failure of the people of Telangana in electing correct representatives or is it the grand failure of the representatives? Development in different regions is the responsibility of the respective elected representatives and the people. None of these representatives worked for the development of the place when they had a chance. Now, they claim that they can do better if they have a state of their own!
Hyderabad needs to be union teriority, and both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh need to develop their own capitals. The funds generated in Hyderabad should be divided in such a way that 20% is allocated for the development of Hyderabad and the remaining 80% for the development of three regions equally. The reason is that these regions were involved in the devlopment of Hyderabad.
States formed on linguistic basis have definitely had their advantages. Indian languages have a long literary and culutural history and the support of the state governemts has been an extremely beneficial influence in reviving interest and research in these languages, traditional art forms and folk lore. At a practical level, use of local language in governemnts dealings with the people is essential for fair and unifrom delivery of servcies. The advocates of smaller states may be looking forward to a future where the language of the single largest group in the country will replace the local languages in governance. The creation of separate smaller state does not immediately create an entirely new set of politicians who are incorruptible or those favorable to compromises based on informed and civilized debate in legislatures. If river waters are an issue in this case, the whole country and not just Andhra/Telangane will be in for a long prolonged tussle. The most fertile regions are always downstream deltas and upsetting the availability of water to these regions is fraught with grave consequences for the food securitry of the country. We already have states building dams very close to the intersate boundaries to impound waters in their own states and lack of coordination for flood control purposes. These problems will only get worse if the country is broken up further. All people should realize they have only one citizenship, and location of birth does not endow them any rights to the exclusion of others. Mr Kishen Reddy and other elected leaders should focus on making the young men and women in Telangana more competetive in the current employment environment than to hark back to 400 years of history or even events in the 1950s that very few of us would care for.
I sincerely appeal to the leaders to just think and speak about the truth and not mislead the innocent people who are living as brothers and sisters since the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Of course there are many places undeveloped both in Telangana Andhra as well as Rayalaseema. For that separation is not the only solution.
A well researched article. Kudos to 'Yudofud Public Strategies' for putting this together!
Excellent article by Mr. Kishan Reddy. Andhra looters are everywhere and in every position in AP; they are depriving Telangana of its rightful share.
I have strong objections regarding two issues. 1)About SRC's recommendation: They simply put the case for and against unification of two states. Claiming that SRC was against formation of AP just because they mentioned the case against formation in the report is only to misguide the people. It can be interpreted that the committee strongly advocated the formation of AP. It is for this reason, formation of AP happened in the first place. So I request Mr. Kishan Reddy to explain on what basis he came to such conclusion. The report can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_369_to_389_of_SRC 2)Regarding river management: A excerpt from Bachawat Tribunal report 'In determining what is equitable utilisation where existing and contemplated uses are in conflict, while other factors must be considered and weighed, the most important single factor is the preferred position of the existing use; thus, an existing use which is beneficial and not wasteful will ordinarily prevail over a contemplated use.' Though the catchment area is one of the factors to calculate the allocated water, it is not the only factor as explained by the Tribunal. Bachawat then attempted to determine the quantity of available water in the River Krishna. After reviewing the data available from 1894 to 1969, the tribunal determined, based on 75% dependability, that the river has 2,060 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of water. After four years of further study, Bachawat awarded 560 TMC of Krishna River water to Maharashtra (27.2%), 700 TMC to Karnataka(33.9%), and 800 TMC to Andhra Pradesh (38.9%). Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh have 26.81%, 43.74%, and 29.45% of the Krishna River catchment areas in their states. Maharashtra and Karnataka protested that the tribunal's award was unfairly beneficial to Andhra Pradesh despite it having a smaller share of the catchment area and requested reconsideration. Bachawat, while admitting that Andhra Pradesh received a larger share of the river water when compared to its catchment area, ruled against Maharashtra’s and Karnataka’s claims. He relied on the “protection of existing uses” principle in his ruling. This principle guaranteed water to existing projects such as the Nagarjun Sagar and Krishna Delta system. Similar principle was used to distribute that 800TMC inside the state too. So I request Mr. Kishan Reddy to explain how a separate state can get huge water share showing 'catchment area' as a basis to get it. There are two possibilities: either Karnataka objects and gets the water share it is bound to get using catchment area as basic principle which will reduce Telangana's and rest of AP' water share anyway or another tribunal upholding Bachawat's principle says even now those 800TMC allocated to AP should be distributed the same way as it was before. So a separate state can't possibly help the water share problem mentioned. I hope these questions reach Mr. Kishan Reddy.
Indian Government needs to evolve a better strategy and national policy for states by instituting a new state reorganising commission. Mr Kishan Reddy who under the guise of speaking for small states is effectively exploiting fault line of regional differences that are festered by Telengana leaders. To hide their own failures, Telangana leaders successfully deflected Telengana peoples' anger towards people from non-Telangana areas in AP. It is unfortunate that BJP, which claims to be different from Congress, is joining with Congress in divide-and-rule of people and sharing a podium with TRS party whose leaders are carrying hate campaigns towards non-Telangana people in Andhra Pradesh.
Good advocacy on Telangana state but all the good counsel is falling on deaf ears of Andhra and Seema leaders. They should realise that they can be in Hyderabad and can go on with their private jobs and businesses ; river water will be shared; they will continue to get their rightful share but not what is not due to them..
It is gratifying to note that The Hindu has published a contra argument to its opinion. Even for a strong believer in The Hindu's balanced editorials and a sense of fair play such as me, the editorial seemed too one-sided to come from your esteemed daily, given the excellent case made out for Telangana.
Is the problem of division because of Hyderabad or because people really believe in unity? 99% percent because of Hyderabad. Then why not just discuss this issue and compromise and divide the state?
First paragraph is very well written. Provides a case of Telangana. However it fails to explain properly why Hyderabad should go to Telangana. Citing historical precedence is not enough. We don't live in the past. A common capital which is also a Union Territory seems to be a sensible compromise.
I believe that 'unity is strength' and we should try to keep people united with as many ways as possible, and address the problems using reason.
Fact: Telangana has seen not seen the development it could have. The question to ask is WHY? Over 50+ years, the political leadership of the region has proven incapable of showing the vision and leadership to make this happen. Sadly, the same is not true of their pursuit of accumulation of wealth as individuals. It's the same political leadership that has so badly failed over the last two decades - can they be any more successful with a new state?
Separate Telangana state is the desire of Telangana people and it is from the heart of the Telangana people. Separate Telangana is the birth right of the Telangana people who suffered a lot in all aspects in the United Andhra Pradesh. Today everyone in Telangana (students, farmers, lecturers, professors, doctors, lawyers, NRIs) would like to see Telangana as a separate state. Here in America, all the Washington DC Telangana NRIs attended Telangana meeting on June 5th and expressed their support for separate state. This Telangana movement is from the Heart of Telangana people. Thanks to The Hindu.
The majority in Andhra Pradesh wish for a united state. It seems that breaking of promises given on Telangana's development has led to the demand for a separate state. I believe that first comes India and then the states. And the over all experience tells us that smaller states' development depends on the good governance and flow of investments, which is need of the hour.
The basis of the argument that 'the creation of two separate States did not halt Mumbai's rapid development. In fact, it additionally paved the way for the development of Ahmedabad and Surat as alternative financial centres. Here in AP the language both written and spoken remains the same, and that was not the case with Maharashtra and Gujarat.
I appeal to the representatives of public to educate the general public of all the regions about the pros and cons of separation. As stated continually and radically by most Telangana region leaders, if is true that the non-Telanganites loot the resources and spend in their respective regions instead of developing Telangana..why do you think that there is a chaotic situation if there is development in other parts. Because the people are investing their money and lives in the region of Hyderabad to be precise, people of non-Telangana regions are worried. Political puppeteers making outrageous comments and igniting regional riots should have to introspect on what to be done instead of throwing public into confusion and distress. Therefore, though there are benefits of division, please do an analysis on the losses. Let the Telugu-speaking people live harmoniously divided/un-divided in a safe way as the constitution privileges every Indian national. I think the government (both state and central) should soon end the issue and make the decision that is just.
The BJP state unit, TRS lead by K.Chandra Shekhara Rao, TDP and Congress MLAs and MPs of the Telangana region are absolutely right in their demand for a separate state out of the present Andhra Pradesh. Except Hyderabad, thanks to its Capital City Stature, one finds no major companies/corporations/firms been set up in any of the nine districts of the region. These nine districts i.e..Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam, Nizamabad, Nalgonda, Medak, Mahabubnagar and Rangareddy have been expanding not because of developmental activities initiated by the Government but due to the Real Estate boom and inflow of people for education and medical fecilities from the villages. Though the TRS chief initiated this movement on November 29th for a political mileage, fortunately it has turned out to be a mass movement with one member from each family participating in it. The time has come to carve out a separate State immediately.
It is an excellent article. If politicians behind who want to justify unification of Andhra Pradesh they should highlight what developments have taken place in Telanagana since 1956 (except in and around Hyderabad i.e. Ranga Reddy & Medak Districts).
Telangana state should be divided NOW to avoid continued suppression of locals by non local politicians. These non local aggressive and greedy politicians have stolen waters for 50 odd years. The Sagar dam could have been built to supply waters for not just 4 districts but 2 or 3 states if planned well. The tax revenues from Hyderabad city are now stolen for development of Andhra region and not the local region of Telangana. That is unseen anywhere in the world.
I don't think you should be separating states just for the issue of the different languages they speak.. this practice should be stopped as soon as possible.
Economic growth rates may be higher in smaller states as Mr. Reddy argues, but Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are better known for things other than their growth rates, and I actually think the cited rates do not give a true picture of the situation in these States. Anyway, Telangana has much stronger reasons underpinning its demand for separate Statehood. Its people have endured an oppressive feudal system, and later held back by a lack of able and committed leadership. Even the IT boom of the last decade has benefited only those who could financially and attitudinally invest in that education and work, and has largely left untouched much of this region. A large proportion of the young population is not ready to join the booming private services sector and need government jobs. (They say that every group has at some stage or the other benefited from government, through employment or in other ways.) People are hoping for better prospects for themselves under a separate State. The Telangana movement during the last two months is also an outpouring of that discontent.
The article has clearly reflected that creation of new states is not going to affect Indian unity but will rather help in India's progress by contributing to the national GDP.
BJP floor leader has effectively argued the `inevitability' of a separate Telangana and its `desirability' and how a just and sustainable solution can be found to the Telangana issue, including the `capital' issue. The statiscal back-up lends credibility to the impassioned narration.
Please Email the Editor