BBC BLOGS - Soutik Biswas's India
« Previous | Main | Next »

Does India need more states?

Soutik Biswas | 14:02 UK time, Thursday, 10 December 2009

A boy reading a newspaper in Hyderabad, Andhra PradeshIt is not surprising that the movement for a new Indian state has been resurrected in Andhra Pradesh.

It was here that an emotive movement for "linguistic autonomy" was begun by its majority Telugu-speaking people after independence. That led to the formation of Andhra Pradesh state and eventually resulted in India's internal map being redrawn on the basis of the language spoken by most people in a region - the process took a decade to complete, ending with Punjab state in 1966.

Though overwhelmingly successful, "linguistic states" have revealed inadequacies - and more states have been carved out since for other reasons. For one, some Indian states are unwieldy because of their size or population or both - undivided Bihar was the size of the Federal Republic of Germany; the present, truncated Uttar Pradesh has a population equivalent to Brazil's and more than Pakistan's. So there has been talk about dividing Uttar Pradesh further into four new states - Harit Pradesh, Avadh, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand.

Clearly, there are other identities in India which are not founded in language - caste or more importantly, a shared cultural identity, are some of them. Some states in the north-east were carved out to assuage tribal anxieties at being swamped by more resourceful and advantaged outsiders.

You have to visit the Telangana region to see how different it is from the rest of the state although people share the same language. Also, many say, if you have nine "Hindi-speaking" states, why can't you have two "Telugu speaking ones"?

Others say new states don't serve any purpose. They end up benefiting entrenched local elites and the middle class, and leave the poor in the lurch. They point to Jharkhand which was carved out of southern Bihar in 2000 - nine years on, many of its people have turned to Maoists, and its politicians are embroiled in some of India's worst corruption.

A number of north-eastern states carved out of Assam are accused of becoming fiefs of local elites or kleptocracies. The issues of lack of development and growing corruption are untouched. Creating financially unstable states, critics say, can lead to even more problems.People protesting in favour of a Telangana state

Others say new states remain works in progress - among them Uttarkhand and Chattisgarh, despite the latter's current woes and a strong Maoist presence. It has taken some four decades for Haryana and Himachal Pradesh to turn into successful states. And India still has relatively few states given the size of its population: with some 300 million people, the US has 50 states; India with its billion-plus people has only 28.

Clearly the federal government faltered over Telangana. It could have held all-party talks before announcing the first steps towards a new state. Instead, it made an unilateral midnight announcement, thinking everybody would fall into line.

Will all this lead to the Balkanisation of India, as some fear? Before India divided states along linguistic lines, a leading newspaper warned such a move would encourage reactionary forces. "They will lay an axe at the very root of Indian integrity," it said. The newspaper got it horribly wrong. The naysayers will possibly get it wrong this time too.


or register to comment.

  • 1. At 5:36pm on 10 Dec 2009, Ananya78 wrote:

    Clearly, as Soutik suggests, there are no easy answers to whether we need more states. On the whole, from what he has written, it seems more states is not such a bad thing at all, given that we still have so few states compared to say America as proportion of the population. Only, the formation of new states has to be handled better by the government, to avoid the mess like the one over Telangana.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:49pm on 10 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    States by definition are political entities. The creation of one form of political corruption to replace another does not change the lives of the people. The ability to pit one set of people against another for political gain infects many countries. More government is always advocated as the solution to problems yet there is no history that this is a solution. These suggestions are usually pushed by those who wish to have access to taxes or benefit from corruption. 50 state or 100 states, what does that really matter. What we know is that poor remain poor. The issue of governance has not been solved by human beings. Government has hardly ever offered an example for the people to follow. As we are all human beings we keep looking for ways to separate ourselves from each other. Illusions on top of illusions to create more illusions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:37pm on 10 Dec 2009, A3 wrote:

    We do not need new states but better accountability for the politicians and the bureaucrats, new states are just a ploy of the politicians to get into power.
    As a nation we have a strong administrative structure, the problem is that it is grossly misused. We have the local Panchayats and the Districts and the States, these were created so that we can reach all sections of the society. As a nation if we want to make a real change then the solution is to empower these building blocks and hold them accountable.
    The real problem though is not that we do not know what needs to be done but the fact our "rulers" have vested interest in not solving these problems. How long will we run away from this basic fact and keep debating about things like creating a new state.

    I guess the answer is "forever"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 11:32pm on 10 Dec 2009, ajay wrote:

    Mr. Biswas

    You imply Punjab became a state in 1966. Infact Haryana became a state in 1966. Here are brief details ...

    Eight princely states of East Punjab were grouped together to form a single state called PEPSU - Patiala and the East Punjab States Union - with Patiala as its capital. PEPSU state was merged with Punjab in 1956. Later in 1966, Haryana was carved out of Punjab.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 01:46am on 11 Dec 2009, shikari shambu wrote:

    Create more states, generate more jobs... for politicians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 03:12am on 11 Dec 2009, Aadhaar wrote:

    I'll be honest: When I first read this news last night, I almost posted a hate based comment, comprising F words and all that. I think I am calmer now, so here is another shot at it.

    I deplore this move to make a new state. Do we really need more fragmentation based on linguistic lines? Do we really need another state based education system? Another set of domicile laws? All this is already causing enough misery in this nation and yet the people do not learn. I have lived in the South (despite having been born in the North) for over 9 years (out of my 25 years spent wandering the earth) now - I have never heard any of my Telugu friends (and I have atleast 9-10 of them) that they are discriminated or down trodden upon in Andhra.

    Andhra Pradesh was a state with good governance. One SHOULD NOT reward a good governed state with bifurcation. This is akin to dividing Infosys (one of India's largest IT company) into two because it is performing well!

    So the corollary of the above para would be to divide states which are un-governable (due to population) into smaller ones. In this case, Uttar Pradesh ought to be divided into 3-4 entities (because given the state of things in that region, it is heading towards the status of Bihar).

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 04:40am on 11 Dec 2009, helloitsme wrote:

    I am amazed at the BBC's online coverage of the Telangana issue. It is by no means clear that a new Telangana state would be a good thing, and the balance of BBC reporting is certainly very one sided. The above blog post by Soutik is the first I have seen to address the issues with any kind of balance, and we need more information to get a really clear picture.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 04:54am on 11 Dec 2009, danths wrote:

    While there's no dispute that the past Andhra govt. have neglected the region, creation of new states is not necessarily a solution. The comparison drawn to 50 states of USA for a 300 Million population,IMHO has been wrongly interpreted. States in USA were not drawn on divisive linguistic or caste basis. USA doesn't have intra state border issues or issues on sharing natural resources including river waters. USA doesn't have regional parties who lack the foresight to think on a broader scale. Judicial system in USA is very effective in dealing with corruption. Three Illinois Governors have been imputed and arrested in the past. Compare that with India's Chief Ministers.
    This blunder by the central govt. is in no way indicative of any type of good times to come.Few politicians will prosper, but the common man continues to suffer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 10:06am on 11 Dec 2009, sasidhar wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 10. At 12:11pm on 11 Dec 2009, ProMal wrote:

    Quite a shame that our central govt has succumbed so easily. These states are never created for the betterment of the people therein, they are purely made for political reasons. It is such a waste of time, money and resources when there are so many more important issues to deal with. Now all other secessionist groups will go bonkers and we'll hear about Gorkhaland, Kamtapur, Bodoland, Coorg, Vidarbha etc etc all over again. Such a spineless act by the Central govt. In the 21st century we should be talking about more integration, not more states!

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 12:52pm on 11 Dec 2009, Aadhaar wrote:

    I agree wholeheartedly with sasidhar and ProMal.

    I will however start with a tangential thought: I really hate Gandhi's hunger strike at times like these. While I supported his call for non-violence, his method of holding the entire populace by his hunger strike was akin to demagoguery and blackmail. Moreover, it set a very *VERY* bad example to all the other even bigger demagogues like this "leader".

    Just look at the mess all this has caused - we are having protests calling for Gorkhaland, call for a plebiscite in Bodoland (and I am pretty sure that more will follow). What's worse is that there is likely to be violence in Assam in which people will most likely die. Innocent people, losing their lives for a cause which in the end does not guarantee anything. Just look at Jharkhand - that area is a hotbed for Maoist and Naxal activities. What good did the division of Bihar bring about? How well off are the adivasis and the hill tribes of Jharkhand than they were 10 years ago? At best it has been a checkered success. What a god awful mess!

    I agree with what Sasidhar said when he said that parts of Telengana are backward and mired in poverty. They need to be helped, it's AP duty to help them out of their poverty. And if AP does not, then it should be held accountable. But all this does not mean that you leave the state! Do the people of Telangana really think that separatism is some sort of magic wand that will cure all their troubles?

    In the end, the centre screwed this one up. Screwed this one very badly indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 1:42pm on 11 Dec 2009, Rohit wrote:

    The article (and the people of India) should be a little more open minded and not always compare itself with only one country in every situation. Instead, the people of India should innovate and make their own decisions with new ideas.

    USA may have 50 states, but at the same time its land mass is more than double of India.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 2:07pm on 11 Dec 2009, Ananya78 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 14. At 2:10pm on 11 Dec 2009, Vikas Gopal Kshemakalyani wrote:

    The trend of creating more and more states in india will one day leave india divided in nearly 1000 states. It is so costly even to carve out one district from another big district, then creation one different state carved out from one big state is definitely much costly in terms of establishment cost of any state govt.offices. India which is developing country and economically very poor, except few examples of Mr.Madhu Koda, C.M.of Jharkhand, could not afford to indulge in such a spending on creation one difference state like Telangana. This is certainly a wrong trend to create more & more states. Most of the indian populace is yet to come out of aristocratic way of thinking. They are seeing it just a promising chance to rivert the clock back to medieval old days of aristocracy which in india was solely based on casteism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 3:34pm on 11 Dec 2009, PeeYat wrote:

    Its not surprising that the Indian Govt. failed misreably to show some sense of leadership in this matter. I am appalled on how can 1 person (Sonia Gandhi) decide on this. There needs to be a referendum on whether a state should be carved or not. And get this, even if a seperate state is created, it may drop deep into poverty if its ruled by the corrupt politicians. Indians elected Congress for the second time, so stop whining and complaining.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 4:21pm on 11 Dec 2009, Princetonian wrote:

    Previously the kingdoms used to do this and now political parties are doing this for obvious reasons. But in this day n' age even normal citizens (especially innocent students) are getting brain-washed into these political tactics. This is purely a psychological game created by the political parties. Physically there are no lines on the planet, it is only a political opinion on the map. The collective names and groups whether it is based on region or language or nationality or religion or caste or ideal or race are all unreal. They are mere words. But they look very real to most of the people and that creates division.
    Constant development (Food, Clothes, Shelter, Health and Education) of the human beings is needed in any part of the world, whether it is within India or Africa or even in USA, especially by keeping the Nature, Planet and other fellow species in harmony.
    All the regions do require proper attention, they may be called 'Telangana' or 'Hyderabad' or 'Guntur' or 'New Delhi' or 'Mumbai'. The 'Telangana' region is one of the under-developed areas either because of the land is not so fertile or too much 'importance' given to the State Capital. This only encouraged migration from Villages to bigger towns and cities which is very common problem in India, as it would create a major imbalance in all the regions. A proper distribution of resources/economy is needed to improve the under-developed areas of the country. India with its fast growing economy seems be moving towards the resource/wealth distribution which is a very good sign. But mere bifurcation of the state with political means does not solve the main issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 4:39pm on 11 Dec 2009, WhitewaterOregon wrote:

    Fascinating issue! From the point of view of the USA, if one state's population grows more than others, that state will get a larger proportion of the 435 members of the House of Representatives. However, because the total is fixed at 435, each representative is responsible to ever larger numbers of voters.

    Does this dilute the influence of a citizen's vote–or the responsiveness of representatives? There's no easy solution because adding more representatives would dilute each representative's vote in the House. Would a more attentive representative be less effective?

    From a purely economic perspective, it can't be denied that the most populous states (California, Texas, New York & Florida) benefit by their influence, but of these four states only one makes the top 10 in per capita income (New York, 8th) and Texas is 33rd out of 50!

    People in northern California & southern Oregon periodically talk of forming their own state (the process is unclear) because of geographic and political distance these rural areas sometimes feel from their respective capitals dominated by urban concerns.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 5:25pm on 11 Dec 2009, MotaMaal wrote:

    If you take a careful look in to the whole drama created by TRS leader, you will find that this leader has no intention to serve the people but to rule over them , and make money through corruption. When TRS leader could not get to become Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh he is trying to create new state and become Chief minister there. If examples are good enough to take a lesson, people should learn from the Madhu Koda,chief minister of Jharkhand who is now embroiled in cases of fraud/money laundering and disproportionate income.

    Even before Telangana's creation process started, TRS in association with local goons (most likely maoists who infest the Telangana region) have started marking which properties in Hyderbad belongs to non-Telangana people and have started burning,destroying them with a further plan to occupy them .How one can be sure of a good governance by a party like TRS?

    creation of state : is it going to solve the real problems of citizens then? No. Is it not going to cost money to citizens ? yes, it will need huge investment for creating the whole governmental apparatus for a new state. In a poor country like India, we should rather save this money and utilize in better manner.

    But what about the argument that Telangana region is not getting proper attention in terms of development ,administration and other things?
    yes , a deputy Chief Minister can be assigned this duty to look after Telangana region. If need be, another Deputy Chief Minister for Rayalseema region or Andhra Region for that matter. And this model can be replicated in other states such as Uttar Pradesh,West Bengal etc, where similar lack of focus in terms of development and administration needs attention. And choose person for Deputy Chief Minister from the region concerned.

    We should look forward to new way to administer regions and utilize Deputy Chief Minister's work in different way to solve the real problems of citizen.

    Though I have not studied public administration as subject neither I am a public servant , I believe that this is the best solution for the citizens and for the development and administration of their region.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 5:53pm on 11 Dec 2009, johhsmith wrote:

    This article is surely lacking the cutting insight that is a trademark os Soutik. I still remember the 'Myth Making' article that he has written recently which so much sums up the current state of affairs in Andhra Pradesh.
    K Chandrasekhar Rao is very widely regarded as a very foul mouthed, wiley, maverick, chameleon like and obnoxious character. He has also become a favourite comedy character on media cartoon shows just like Lallu Prasad yadav in Bollywood although Lallu comes across as more warm and slapstick.He never raised this topic as long as he was enjoying his position as a cabinet minister in the rival Telugu Desam Party. He engaged alliances with all the four rival parties at various points for power broking. In the recent elections the speed at which he switched sides from TDP to BJP schocked everyone. Within hours after election he went to North India to campaign for BJP.
    Just like Longowala of Punjab who took up the cause of seperate Nationhood when he was trimmed down by the then Indira Gandhi KCR too started the Telangana issue when Chandra Babu removed him from his cabinet.Telangana issue is already an abused child(old formula) when the likes of Chenna Reddy in the late sixties used it to get into power.KCR is doing the same or has already done it. Now it will be funny to see a few years down the lane when he is not in power in Telangana what will he start again? The Fourth Estate has been virus infected by the Myth Making B-grade media in Andhra and this is bringing the speed factor.

    Telangan issue is a Non-issue. The neighboring Rayalaseema, Vidarbha, Orissa, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, U.P, Bihar etc are equally poor. Infact with Hyderabad Telangana areas around it profited massively. More money has been spent on irrigation projects in Telangana than in other areas. KCR or his cronies will never talk statistics or numbers to substantiate their claim. When challenged with statitics/numbers they will swiftly switch to 'Atma Gowravam'(Self Respect/pride).
    The Andhra state is reeling under financial crisis, severe health and sanitary issues(Dengue,Malaraia etc epidemics), severe power crisis, rampant price fluctuations in essential commodities, recent flood crisis, land and mining mafia,severe traffic, pollution and urban planning issues and what not; all being **THE REAL ISSUES**. It is quite sad to see that nobody even mentions these.
    India as a whole and any third world country is not new to these 'Phony' politics. The 'Anti Hindi in Tamil Nadu', 'Reciting Tamil Mantrams', Wearing Dhotis to office in Kerala, Taking oath in Marathi and in Pakistan 'whipping up Anti India sentiment' are all variations of the same thread.
    The Proletariat has always been the victim and the cause.The hard working and the educated Upper Middle Class is either too afraid to open it's mouth or resigned to fate and the present situation is what we get.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 5:55pm on 11 Dec 2009, Preethi wrote:

    I guess that section of Telugu people wanting a seperate Telangana, to be carved out of the united AP, are forgetting that united they could stand and divide they will fall. But these old wise sayings aside, what I don't understand is some educated and foreign living folks (settled in US,UK/EU, Australia, Canada and Gulf countries...)are supporting this notion and that is no less hypocrisy.

    I will explain why. If one were to assume the notion that jobs in united AP are not for all Telugu speaking folks or for that matter any Indian but rather locals are to be selected for local jobs only would breed too much inclusiveness and stifling of standardization and quality. Only when there are 100 posts and 200 different qualified candidates that the best could be selected and offered the job against any locals only for local jobs would make government or private companies choose only the locals irrespective of any quality or merit.

    If some foreign settled folk from AP (Telangana region in particular) think that the above position is wrong and that jobs in Telangana area are to be exclusively given to people from there and nobody else, on the grounds that settlers are increasingly taking away the jobs, the let me ask them why on earth are they (foreign settled Telangana folks) taking away the jobs in the country where ever they are settled? If the Telangana ideology preaches jobs and opportunities in Telangana only for Telangana born and bred, then what right do the foreign settled Telanganites have to usurp the jobs and opportunities from local folks of say Dallas, TX or London, UK or Brisbane, Australia or Ottawa, Canada. Don't they think American or British born have the first right to their jobs. Why should those states in US or UK employ some foreign born and bred fellow instead of a localite when it comes to either IT or any other job? Aren't the foreign settled Telangana folks ruining some local man's right to their bread or is this called the global means of survival on the basis of merit, qualification?

    That's how some of the qualified people from costal AP and the region of Rayalaseema got to Hyderabad, the capital city of the state of AP. In search of jobs and opportunities they came and some settled and flourished and some went back broke. And since the city of Hyderabad was chosen the capital, naturally it became the head quaters of government, Judiciary, commerce and bussiness, sports and entertainment. If people of other areas come there naturally they do have to have shelter and food, so they bought houses and have eateries and thus started the chain of establishments and the boom in every sector. Because of this some locals of Telangana had faced immense competition and some succeeded and some haven't.

    Just because some haven't doesn't mean that this sort of cosmopolitan living is a failure and those who haven't would have to make extra effort. And those areas in Telangana which are not rich enough or developed enough are the same kind of places even in the other ares of the AP be it costal or Rayalseema and need government's atention just like most other in the rest of India.

    Just because migration makes locals feeble or insecure doesn't mean that the competition has to be eliminated and qualification be barred. If that be the case every desolated and under developed state in every country in this world would be up in agitations. Will upstate NY be biter about NY city's growth or will Nottingham be bitter about London? No, migration and assimilation is a human trait and that's what makes us different from animals. How difficult is it for any sane person to understand this?

    Hope this will posted in the spirit of freedom of speech and unlike quite contrary to the other websites which only boast but are not true to what they preach. Thank you BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 7:28pm on 11 Dec 2009, indiablogger815 wrote:

    While many of the AP friends seem very angry about the Telangana separation, I believe that it is a good move and good for India, AP and Telangana in the long run. Say in an imaginary future, AP gets super rich and the politicians want to split AP from India. It will be a disaster both to AP & India. AP may suffer from an unfair dictatorship being imposed. For India, it will set a trend for states to secede. When India breaks up, the western powers will have a field day, playing tiny states against each other and it will be colonialism all over again. This is not a far fetched scenario, it was attempted in Tamil Nadu, but luckily failed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 03:49am on 12 Dec 2009, David wrote:

    Western powers will be under India's spell when India splits up, so we'll wait patiently while China and India fight it out :) :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 06:01am on 12 Dec 2009, Anirudh wrote:


    following are the facts behind the demand for a separate state Telangana:

    Whenever the topic of Telangana is raised, many of us blindly support Andhra or Telangana based on where we come from. Not sure how many really think of why the demand for separate state has been there for such a long time. The 2 major reasons why the demand has been pending for so many years is WATER AND HYDERBAD. People around the state have earned and invested in and around Hyderabad so there is a concerns about the safety of the investment if the state is separated while both the major rivers in our state flow mostly through Telangana. Below are some facts that are few reasons for the demand. Sentiments can be foolish but not facts.

    a. There are 10 districts in Telangana, 9 in Andhra and 4 in Rayalaseema. Out of these 7 districts in Telangana, 3 in Andhra and 1 in Rayalaseema are considered severely backward districts which means 70% of districts in Telangana are backward while in Andhra it is 35% and in Rayalaseema it is 25%. Apart from these there are some areas in all parts of the state which are also backward.
    b. 45% of the state income comes from Telangana region. When it comes to utilization of funds, the share of Telangana is only 28%.
    c. Normally canals are dug to supply water to the crops from rivers for cultivation. The amount of land cultivated through canals in just Guntur district is more than the land cultivated with canals in entire Telangana region.
    d. Nagarjuna sagar dam is built in Nalgonda district which is in Telangana but majority of the water from the dam is used for Krishna and Guntur district. The original dam was supposed to be build much ahead of its present location but the location was changed so that it falls in the Telangana region. Due to the construction of the dam several hectares of Lime stone mines vanished as part of the dam back waters. Everyone know that lime stone is used for producing cement. Even the natural resources were not allowed to remain.
    e. Fluorinated water problem is only in Nalgonda district which has not been resolved since decades.
    f. Two major rivers Krishna and Tungabhadra enter the state of AP in the district of Mahaboobnagar(the biggest district in Telangana) but the district always remains the worst draught hit areas along with Anantapur because there is no project and process with which the water can be utilized. The plans for utilization has been pending for decades.
    g. RDS (Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme) is build in Mahaboobnagar to provide water to 85000 hectares of land in the district. The leaders of Rayalaseema blasted the gates of RDS and water is supplied to KC (Kurnool-Cudapah) canal while only remaining water, if any, is supplied to the lands in Mahaboobnagar.
    h. 3 TMC of water from Gandipet is sufficient to supply drinking water to our city. Every year 1700 TMC of water is wasted and is flown into Bay of Bengal from river Godavari. Starting from Nizambad to Bay of Bengal there is no project allowed to build on Godavari. If it is built leaders in Godavari districts fear that the fertile lands in the area may fall short of water. If the Godavari water is utilized properly, there will be no scarcity for food grains in our state.
    i. In Telangana regions, only few areas cultivate one crop a year and very rarely two crops a year while most of the land doesn’t even cultivate single crop. In both the Godavari districts, Krishna and Guntur district, two crops a year is common and there are times where even 3 crops a year are cultivated. The only reason is WATER.
    j. Government issue G.O.’s for implicating its decisions. G.O number 610 is the longest non implicated G.O in the history of AP. The G.O was issued in 1986 by late NTR who was then the CM of AP, which is not yet implicated. The G.O speaks about the share of Telangana employees in Government jobs in Telangana region.
    k. 33% of the population in Mahaboobnagar district have left the district for livelihood to different parts of the state due to draught and majority of them are working as daily labour. No other district has so many people who fled the home place due to lack of livelihood and working as daily labour.
    l. There are 25 plus government degree colleges in Krishna, Kadapa and Guntur district while there is not even a single government degree college in Ranga Reddy district.
    m. Dairy development corporation of AP purchases milk from farmers across the state for distribution. For the same milk, in Andhra, the government pay Rs. 24 to the farmers and in Telangana they pay Rs. 22 per litre. Partiality is shown even in milk J
    n. In between 2005-2008 government sold lands worth Rs. 20000 crores in and around Hyderabad which was utilized to build projects in Rayalaseema and Andhra.
    o. Not even a single project was completed in Telangana in the last 5 years while several projects were completed in Andhra and Rayalaseema.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 09:00am on 12 Dec 2009, Ullas wrote:

    India is an evolving democracy. So no harm in trying different options to see what works. As long as decisions are taken on the basis of majority opinion most things are acceptable. Big state, small state. What works, works.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 09:37am on 12 Dec 2009, iriscatcher wrote:

    Everything,in a democratic country,is done to fulfill the expectations and aspirations of its citizens. Likewise its citizens if feel something good for them but not being addressed demands the same, be it a change of rule or creation of a separate state. During independence India was broken into two pieces was it for good or worse? Now they are demanding a separate state,clear cut norms are there regarding this and if followed properly,no harm in creating a separate state. But the thing which should not be forgotten that the people of Telengana are not satisfied with the Government out there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 1:44pm on 12 Dec 2009, Ullas wrote:

    Since town and village governments count for nothing in India, smaller states may actually mean that the powerful state governments may finally get closer to the people. I would prefer to interact with a government that is 50 kms away instead of 300 kms away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:50pm on 12 Dec 2009, happiness5 wrote:


    This is soooo stupid..people are fighting everywhere...seriouly..can't we just live happily and help each other many days are going to live on this planet??? tell you know when your last day is??? i don't think one knows..for the time you are here..can't you just be happy..also..when you die, you cannot even take your own body with yourself do not have right on it when your gone..people bleed blood when they get a cut..some do not bleed blood and while others bleed dirt...we all bleed blood...we are all one...why are people trying to separate everyone with some stupid reason??? if poverty is there...then i am sure there are many rich people in India to help out..i accept the poverty..but seperation won't help the poverty..uniting people will help..the more people that help to fight this..the more we can achieve and live happily..there is soo much learn and each other out and live happily..that is the best thing you can ever do!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 5:40pm on 12 Dec 2009, Prashanth wrote:

    When there is an idea of "New World Order" a conspiracy theory and talks evolving on one hand, while these kinds of segmentations and divisions really unwise.
    As our friends spoke.. simply waste of money and time with infertile output.
    Separation makes haste and waste, spoils the day to day life of people.Humpty of works and routine disturbed.Natural chain is broken and attached again.Detachments can be easily done.. while attachment is big question? Fractured bone is always dangerous.
    Border issues are worst, which are seen everywhere.
    "Unity in Diversity" was mantra.. If our nation proceeds in this kind of strategy only "Diversity" will exist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 6:05pm on 12 Dec 2009, Thiruvengadam Ramakrishnan wrote:

    Soutik Biswas is right on the money. It was Mahatma Gandhi who reorganized the Congress Party on linguistic lines during the freedom struggle and promised linguistic states after independence. The formation of a united Andhra fulfilled Gandhi’s promise. Andhra and the successor states of the Madras Presidency have made great strides in agriculture, economy, education and social development.
    The backwardness of Telengana is a legacy of princely rule. Andhra should have corrected the disparity by greater investment and power sharing. It is not too late for the leaders of the two regions to negotiate and reconcile – instead of prostrations to the high priests of the Congress Party. If divorce becomes inevitable, let it be civil. Eschew street violence and intemperate language.
    There is a lesson for some of the large states who have economically exploited tribal and minor linguistic groups. They would inevitably split – unless the dominant ethnic group accommodates on the basis of economic and cultural concessions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 04:18am on 13 Dec 2009, Prakash Kashwan wrote:

    Soutik, you have presented a balanced viewpoint but your title is rather misleading. As is also implied in some of the other comments, your title gives a feeling as if you are going to argue against new states. Moreover, in a democratic polity as diverse and as complex as ever, these questions cannot be posed in a "yes or no" format. That I think is a more important issue because encouraging people to comprehend these issues in that sense is doing injustice to the kind of journalism you, and the BBC in general, would vouch for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 05:45am on 13 Dec 2009, vikram rajawat wrote:

    I don't think so , India need a new state . Its totally a politics not more than that . Earlear Sardar velleb bhai petal try to merge states to form a part of country . Now a days politicians are trying to divide our country based on their language, caste and much more . It is totally a selfishness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 09:58am on 13 Dec 2009, Aadhaar wrote:

    I don't really have anything "new" to offer more on this subject (apart from the fact that I nailed the predictions, AP is in a mess, and the validity of Congress's actions is being called into question). So, I'm simply going to comment on the posts that have been made. Here we go:

    I agree with you. I think it is very disheartening that people keep thinking locally. Jobs in Telangana for Telangana people? In some ways, it reminds me of the 1800's India when people used to be born, live and die in the same village and never even imagined going to a different village. And on the same thoughts, this argument can be extended further. I live in Mysore and one of my friends from Coorg told me that there are people who want a Coorg state! Both he and I laughed at the notion of a district asking for statehood. I have been to Coorg several times (and Chennai as well) - apart from the geography and the urbanization, there is no disparity in the regions what so ever. Which brings me to the post made by anirudh.

    Your post was very enlightening. For example, I did not know that the problem of flourinated water existed in Nalgonda. But this does not resolve the issue for the creation of a new state. There are several other places in India which are not well off. Each district, each city has it's own set of problems which are unique to itself. That does not give the right to the cities to "separate" themselves, does it? Unless it can be proved in a court of law that there has been an active and deliberate policy by the governments in AP for the past 30-40 years in causing or stalling the problems you have mentioned, all these points are a non-issue as far the statehood of Telangana is considered.

    I don't want to sound crude or anything but the argument you made is arguably the stupidest I have read or heard in this issue so far. AP will get "super rich" and want to separate from India? haha, going by the same analogy, I am guessing London will be separating from the UK in an year or two as well. And so will Shenzen (in China), since it is one of richest region in their country. And then the US will give arms to Shenzen. Then China and Shenzen will go to war... LOLZ....

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 1:51pm on 13 Dec 2009, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:

    While I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on this issue, the way I see it, India would benefit from many more states.

    One of the main reasons for a federalised government is the idea that local (i.e. state) governments are more knowledgeable about what their jurisdictions need and are more adept at realising those needs. Also, that those governments more successfully represent the people.

    As the blog states, almost all - if not all - of India's states have huge populations compared to other federal democratic countries. This defeats the purpose (excluding granting cultural autonomy). To be effective, each Indian state should only have a few tens of millions at most, if other democratic countries are models to go by. There should probably be less than ten million per state.

    The other option would be to end the federal system altogether and go solely with a central government. However, for this to work, India may also need to ditch democracy and become authoritarian. China has proven (so far) that a central government can rule a large country of hundreds of millions of people. But I doubt direct rule from Beijing would work so well if China were democratic.

    So if India cherishes democracy, then I think many more states (maybe 150 to 200 in total) need to be created to get a system that is effective. India fortunately already has a parliamentary system, so if constituencies are smaller, the people may be able to choose politicians better (because they are more likely to actually know something substantial about them). The elites may rule because they have name recognition and the constituencies are too large for lesser-known politicians with good ideas to get noticed. More states may initially lead to more corrupt and aristocratic rule, but even more may stamp down corruption and aristocracies, if you get my point.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 1:54pm on 13 Dec 2009, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:

    I don't have a clue why the sentences in my above post have no spaces between them. I definitely put them in when typing up the post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 6:59pm on 13 Dec 2009, David wrote:

    There is an article in the paper of my city--KANSAS CITY STAR from K.C., Mo, USA--about--

    China/India tensions along the border are rising with the rise in power of India and China. That a while ago, China rattled sabres when India tried to build a road near the border -- it, the road, was abandoned.

    The article went on to say that China has built up naval ties with Pakistan and Sri Lanka recently AND

    I did not know that Pakistan has a coast on the ocean so I looked at an atlas and yes, it does. Hmmmmm, why are we so dependent on Russia to transport materiel to Afghanistan. Does this mean that the war ally Pakistan is not really an ally, why can we not approach Afghanistan by Pakistan and its coast?

    Hmmmm, the tricky place that is AfPak--uh ohhhh--watch out poor India--
    Americans are becoming wary/weary of this war.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 1:56pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sherus Ramuk wrote:

    Yes, common sense prevails from time to time and let's not get bogged down with the federal concept of the Indian set-up.

    Through out decades, the central government has repeatedly disappointed and dismayed people in transferring the local goverments the necessary instruments of legislative reforms that are essential for a functional democracy.

    What is evident in Europe (Germany for example)is the respect for local governance and this is the ONLY way forward for such a populous country as India. In the medium term, consequences of evolving small states could be substantial, financially. However, development as a core concept to be a force for change comes from TRASNFERRING more power which I would like to call RESPONSIBILITIES to the very people who are part of the Democracy.

    More small states are welcome but the Centre still has to give up it's power hold. I can see the tunnel alright, so let there be light at the end of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:58pm on 14 Dec 2009, LIm Kheak Wei wrote:

    This will become the biggest difference between China and India in the coming decade.Most Chinese would not know what dialect group Chairman Mao,Chiang Kai Shek,Hu Jintao or President Ma of Taiwan speaks at home nor do that matter to them.China has existed as a single entity since 221BC and most of its wars are for the presevation of China as a single entity.Indian leaders will have to work very hard if they want to hope to develop India.Time and energy wasted fighting each other is time and energy wasted.The Chinese have learned that long ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 7:05pm on 14 Dec 2009, Shilpy wrote:

    The real issue is the anti-democracy nature of the Congress party which is beholden to the interests of the Gandhi family. Gandhi family owns the Congress party, and behaves as such. That the Telangana would be a new state was not decided through a referendum of Telangan peopple!!!!! It was decided by a distant Sonia Gandhi, who has not an iota of an idea about nor interest in Telangana's issues or interests - and can't be expected to have. Surprised? You would be - if you are not an Indian, that is. In Congress rule, if she wishes she can join the incompatibles and bifurcate compatible ones if that would suit her perceived interests. And she is not even in the central government!!! This is Indian democrazy where the Prime Minsiter is an unelected person (MM Singh) and decision maker (Sonia Gandhi)is not in the government. Even the Chinese President needs the votes of his politburo. And people think China is totalitarian while India is a democracy!!!!!! God have mercy on India.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 7:59pm on 14 Dec 2009, SVReddy wrote:

    Mr. United Andhra!!!, Please Clarify

    I don’t know what happened in 1969 and before. But, I have observed and noticed how much we, Telangana people struggling in our own state in all areas. I hope we all aware the recent telengana movement since 2001 when the TRS was born.

    I would like to ask to our Telugu Brother “Mr. United Andhra” the following:

    When, the TRS started in 2001 with a aim of TELANGANA State only, Why the “United Andhra” Leaders / People didn’t take any corrective actions for United Andhra ? And what they did for the Unity of the Telugu People?

    Did you remember Mr. United Andhra, in 2004 elections Congress tie up with TRS with a Assurance of the Telangana and Discussions with Naxlites. Congress – TRS won in that elections with a huge majority and got great victory. Then why you all vote for them since you want “United Andhra” ?

    When, the Telangana Bhavan was constructing in Hyderabad, you don’t know the buildings foundation are based on the “Telangana Seperation” and Telangana Movement only ??

    2009 Elections – TDP – TRS tieup for Telangana, PRP, BJP, Congress, CPI, CPM Every party was taken the slogan of Separate Telangana and every party in support of the Telangana only. Then how the “United Andhra” voted for them ? You don’t know Telanagna must be give to the Telangana people?

    Until the midnight of 9th December 2009, Every Political Party in support of Telangana and they give the statements in public, in Assembly, Lokshabh, Rajyasabha every where they assured to support Telangana and Telagana Bill. Even in the all party meeting with CM also everybody supported for Telangana, Then why you all united Andhra leaders / people were calm? Why you didn’t oppose? Why you didn’t open your voice?

    I feel, they may think “Telangana” can’t be achieved forever and maintained the silence with their smartness. Mr. United Andhra!! We already achieved it and will be started soon. I am sorry to write we are observing all your hesitation / movement as only your jealous.

    Dear Telanganians, Start the writing of Telangana every where in posts / letters / documents / papers / Media etc., now we don’t need further permissions as our state already announced.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 8:53pm on 14 Dec 2009, indiablogger815 wrote:


    Both the counter examples you gave are irrelevant. London is the capital (=>majority) and China is a dictatorship. The key idea is Benefit to Cost (Tax) ratio. (ie) When people ask the question "how much benefit do I derive from the tax I paid" and they dont find a satisfactory answer, there will be agitation. This is a universally applicable idea. Study all the revolutions the world has seen so far (French, American, Russian, Chinese...) and you will find that this is the core problem. Thats exactly whats happening in Telengana. Its better that Telengana wants to separate from AP, rather than a unified AP from India. I myself am a Telugu'ite, though not from AP. Its not that I'm rejoicing at the supposed misfortune of AP.

    Our country needs to have a strong central govt. Right now it is very weak. The way we conduct ourselves as a country in the world community is pathetic. Our PM goes to Egypt and claims that we are an equally terrorist country like Pakistan. China has surrounded us with military bases in all directions and insults our democratically elected PM when he visits one of our own state. If having smaller manageable states will create a strong central govt, I believe we should support it. Its good for us as a country & people in the long run.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 01:58am on 15 Dec 2009, indiablogger815 wrote:

    @LIm Kheak Wei

    "China has existed as a single entity since 221BC"

    Pure nonsense churned out by the commie propaganda machinery. China officially boasts of 55 other nationalities, but they have been made "minorities". After CPC took over, there was a mass "conformity" exercise which wiped out the subnationalities & projected a unified Han identity. Thats the key difference between India & China. In India, the subnationalities are not wiped out, but cherished. In China, like all other empires which have come and gone, the subnationalities are eliminated to project a unified national identity. India is the way forward - "unity in diversity". Everyone predicted that India is an artificial union, created by the British, and will break up soon. India has defied all those doomsday predictions and not just survived, but succeeded and is fast becoming a global power. We have so many multi millenial subcultures preserved intact. That IMO is a strength which no other country in this world can boast of. Unfortunately for China, the cultural diversity was ruthlessly destroyed & the minorities marginalized ever since CPC took over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 04:28am on 15 Dec 2009, Vivek Reddy wrote:

    Telangana is long overdue

    Most posts seem to be of opinion that more states is not a good option.Also,while discussing about Telangana, most readers are not aware that it existed as separate province for more than an year even after formation of India. Telangana existed as a separate state until 1955 and was merged with Andhra against its wishes and the adivce of Nehruji who suspected that Telangana would not be treated fairly by politially savvy Andhra leaders. There were guarentees, Gazetted Orders, and tribunal awards to protect interests of Telangana (viz; Gentlemen's agreement, GO 610 and Bachavat Tribunal award) and all of these were blatantly flouted by successive governments.
    The agitation to seek justice was put down with brutal force in 1969 in which 360 youth lost lives, most of them to bullet wounds - a situation would not go unnoticed in today's world, outside of India. However, not surprisingly, even today most of the Telugu media -news papers, TV, and movie are owned by Andhra business men that blocks any content against their interests. A case in point was a demonstraion of nearly 500,000 ( half a million) people in Warangal a few years back that did not find a mention in any Hyderabad based news papers!
    While both the major rivers - Godavari and Krishna flow entirely through Telangana, the dams are situated to the advantage of Andhra, while built and maintained by government and paid for by everybody!. A farmer in Telangan next ot the rivers has to dig a well, fit a pump, pay for its maintenance and repair at huge cost while his Andhra coutnerpart gets his farm irrigated for a fraction of the cost. Both the coal mines are in Telangana but the priority of power supply is to Andhra. It is like two brothers build a house and share the cost while the one who owned the lot is asked to fend for himself!
    Also, lot of readers have missed the point that the jobs being referred are Governament jobs which were to be filled in an agreed ratio. However, Telangana people who were to get over 40% of job quota are represented less than 15%,and in the lowest salary class.
    Telangana lands are being sold and leased by government not to the benefit of rural Telangana, but to Andhra entrepreneurs or their political beneficiaries.If readers advocate that Telangana should stay despite all this injustice,they are not looking at the situation from the eyes of the 3 crore people who live in rural areas.

    Equality of development and fairness should be glaue to keep people together not language alone. Asking Telangana people to still be with Andhra is like asking a dalit to stay HIndu but not let him drink water from your well or let him into your temple.
    Telangana did not join Andhra, but the other way is true It is not a separation but a demerger of an experiement that resulted in exploitation. The correction is long overdue. Kindly check all the facts and be a judge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 04:55am on 15 Dec 2009, Sean wrote:

    Speaking as an American who has not yet had the opportunity to visit India, but greatly admires India's accomplishments and great cultural diversity, my personal opinion is that where an overwhelming majority of the people want to be represented under a new political entity--be it a new municipality, state, or even nation--they should have the right to do so. I would apply this to the United States, as well as any other country.

    To Danths, who said this: "USA doesn't have...issues on sharing natural resources including river waters."--Living in the semi-arid Rocky Mountain West, let me assure you that there ARE conflicts over sharing natural resources, for example the Colorado River: Downstream areas like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix suck up disproportionate amounts of water, and their legal water rights are given preference to less-populated, upstream areas like my own state of Colorado. Colorado residents only recently gained the right to collect our own rainwater on personal property!

    Similarly, "USA doesn't have regional parties who lack the foresight to think on a broader scale."--What might you call the ultraconservative Republican party, which has skewed increasingly towards an unrepresentative white, rural, fundamentalist Christian base in the Southern and Midwestern states for several decades now?

    Not to be a jerk...just trying to help illuminate the US perspective...:)

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 11:03am on 15 Dec 2009, Aadhaar wrote:

    @LIm Kheak Wei
    I hate to burst your bubble, but China has also has social tensions in terms of races and ethnic groups. There have been (several) cases of Han majority "overstepping" their regions (this is as said by the minority). Also, it needs reminding that there have been cases of the Chinese government directly enforcing the "Han" label on many Chinese people. In India, this can not be done (neither do I believe that this would be a proper thing to do).
    However, I would like to say that you are absolutely right when you say that India has a bigger mess on it's plate. The diversity and the number of groups striving for their "autonomy" is greater here and poses a higher risk than faced by other countries.

    Ha! You are just the kind of person I was looking for. I would like to ask you a question: Are you a person from Telangana? Or are you a person from India? By any chance, are you both? Your answer would then lead me to make the following statement:
    1)In case you are only from Telangana, then I would be left with no choice but either call you a deluded individual or else label you as a separatist.
    2)In case you are only an Indian, welcome to my world. You would then be able to understand my viewpoint.
    3)In case you are both, I would then ask another question. Do you think the goals of India and Telangana are mutually exclusive? Do you think that India or AP (the "administrator" of the Telangana region) are against the Telangana region? Do you think that AP wish for Telangana to be poor?

    I apologize. I should have used the case of New York separating from USA instead. (I kid, I kid)... HAHA..
    On a more serious note, if the only options were that of a AP nation separate from India and Telangana and a broken AP - I would agree with you. However, I believe that there is a third option: the option of status quo. I am not going to deny that Telangana is poor or has a huge set of problems. You will not find me saying that. But I can say that if Telangana thinks that it's problems are enough to justify a break from AP, then the leaders of Telangana are misguided.
    There are many regions in India (chattisgarh, vidarbha, jharkhand, eastern UP) which have equally difficult problems. The solution to the problem is not separatism, it is direct and proactive administration. That is the solution the problem. Separatism will lead to nothing but over-bloating and already bloated administrative machinery. The cost for the creation of a state is enormous. We are already in 8% fiscal deficit! We can not afford this! Why can't people see this simple fact? A divorce (any divorce) is a costly affair - and it leaves scars. Just as how this divorce is bleeding AP.

    I agree with your basic statement. People of a particular ethnic group, who wish for a state, ought to get one. But like I said, India is not that rich to afford these many states. Almost all our states (with the exception of 5-6) are in fiscal deficit.

    I don't know if people are aware but there was a similar case in Belgium in the 90's. Belgium comprises two languages: Dutch (Flemings) and French (Walloons). In the 90's, a university incident based on the language occurred which almost caused the country to split. The solution? Two zones - one dutch and one french. Both have their own parties antagonistic to each other. Each have their own "national" language. The daily news is in English, with French and Dutch subtitles in the various regions. When I read this, I concluded with the popular notion: Belgium is a country but only in name. It's actually two nations which are in a locked relationship. The only reason why the relationship exists is because they are rich enough.

    India is not as rich as Belgium. And this is not the type of India I wish for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 12:06pm on 15 Dec 2009, sasidhar wrote:

    Yes, I do accept with most the pro telangana comments, that telangana is underdeveloped and it is neglected. But, creation of a separate state is not a solution, Govt. of India carved out Chattisgarh and Jharkhand 10 years ago from Madhya Pradesh and Bihar., now they still stand underdeveloped, with maoist upsurge and lack of strong political presence and investments and huge corruption. Hyderabad city attracts huge investments not becuase it is situated in Telangana, infact Hyderabad is in the middle of an underdeveloped area.

    Infact a lot has been done from the last few years for irrigation projects and investments in education feild and bringing IIT's and Nuclear parks, IT Parks, BIO cities and investment to Telangana, if we say this telanagana people say "Atma Gouravam" (Self Pride). The only one major irrigation project in question is Nagarjuna Sagar, infact when we started as a new country investments made to uplift the entire country in a phased manner, its ironic that no such project built on Godavari. Andhra Pradesh had 2 Telangana Cheif ministers, one of them worked as the prime minister of India aswell, no one stopped them from developing telangana, so it a collective mistake made by everyone. One of the commenters ask why no one raised their voice when KCR started the movement, MR KCR is so inconsistent that if you look at his career, he left the TDP not because he want telangana but he was refused to give big ministries, he compromised with his cause many times when ever he got plum posts in centre, He and party members resigned and gone for elections and where pathetically defeated by their own telangana people. He is just mere selfish corrupt politican, who is in no ways different than the other corrupt CM's. The mother of all battles is for Hyderabad, Hyderabad is culturally rich, but the newly formed IT and IS sector are developed by a joint effort of all Andhra people. Infact the majority of properties purchased in Hyderabad from the last 10 years and the majority of Hitech jobs are done by Andhra people only. Its like Chinese taking away hongkong after so much effort put by British. Someone said its like two brothers contructing a house and the other being discriminated, infact its a single entity, we just have to put our house in order that it., we have to apply medicine if we get injured we should not simply amputate it from our body.

    Let me give the pro's and con's if telangana forms, Telangana dosent have a strong political presence, It is higly doubtful if TRS comes to power again or not, majority of the firms would be willing to move to vizag or vijaywada, film industry might move, no gaurantee that andhra people will be safe in Hyderabad. The maoist presence is the highest in the entire telangana districts, any mis adventure will lead to a catastrophy, land prices will fall, with majority of remittances made my NRI's are from Andhra districts they will be more inclined to invest in Costal cities.

    Andhra is always in benefit with Telangana, A new state capital will be formed it might be a bit difficult in the beginning but since most of investors and NRI's are from Andhra, we can create a wealthy state capital, its not big deal to divert the investments into Vizag, with port facilities and well educated work force, it will be a investors dream land. Highest revenues for film industry comes from Andhra, so obvisouly they will move aswell, with KG basin and fertile lands there is not doubt about the future of Andhra. Still with so many benefits Andhra people still want a united AP., If CBN becomes the CM again, he can easily divert the investments into Andhra.

    Based on the risks that await the telangana state, it is better to stay united and work for the areas which are neglected, A new state is only in the disadvantage of telangana, it dosent cost andhra anything.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 12:07pm on 15 Dec 2009, G B Reddi wrote:

    Small is beautiful is management jargon only. Almost all small states like Jharkand, Chattisgarh, Goa(rape and crime capital), Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura and Sikkim have failed to show any remarkable progress despite infusion large finances from Delhi since their creation. By contrast, big states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala have made remarkable progress to dynamic people and leadership.
    To gain correct insight, the Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Delhi should bring out a 'Status Paper District wise" on Development. The lies will get exposed - Telangana region is the most prosperous please.
    Supposing the state is bifurcated, then the so called Andhra region will be administratively more inconvenient to manage with NO CHAMGE in the longitudinal mass from North to South remaining the same.
    The crisis is due to political power sharing ONLY and caste oriented. It will create a whole range of disputes like the sharing of water resources, division of assets and may be allocation of new capitals at 2 locations. Who will pay for them - Delhi or Telangana?
    As a rural area person remarmed succinctly, the whole crisis has flared up due to bitter infighting amongst the rich for power, wealth and status, and not for the upliftment of the downtrodden.
    What happens to Hyderabad City internal economy, when there is a sudden reduction of 60% floating population from the Andhra region. After all, it will be poor labor class who will be adversely affected. How will they come out of it - crime?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 1:48pm on 15 Dec 2009, Vivek Reddy wrote:

    The issue of Telangana is seen merely as breaking up a state but not as solution against further economic exploitation. Is it not better to govern one's own state if 60 years of being united has not worked. Is it not said that people who do not learn from history are condemned to witness it again.
    There are few fabourite thesmes all Andhra readers dwell on. The popular ones are: Future of Hyderabad, Past Telangana CMs,Naxalism, KCR's personality, Common Language, Demands for other new states, Andhra's contribution to Hyderabad, Let us look at each one from a common man from Telangana who endured 55 years of systematic discrimination.
    Hyderabad: Telangana is not Hyderabad alone but 30 million others who live in rural areas. Also,Andhras are not the only new settlers but join the list of Bengalis, Maharashtrians, Gujaratis,Rajasthanis etc.But Andhras seem to be obsessed by Telangana with primary concern of what happens to investors and investments. Nothing would happen to their property are their ability to enjoy it as they please. What happened to Gujaratis who invested in Bombay when the Bombay state was made into Gujarat and Maharashtra, or to the Telugus in Madras.It is akin to a place in US or UK where there are large number of immigrants and the place is rezoned. What happens to them or the place. Nothing from their rights as investors. Any one who has any concerns about the safety or rights of Hyderabad investments is paranoid.
    Past CMs from Telangana: What happens when a state with 100 MLAs merge with another region with 200 MLAs. They become minority ab initio, and to be in power can not do any thing over night.As I said in one of my earlier posts,being media barons, Andhra news papers and TV media constantly ridiculed and undermined credibility of them. An example is the usage of helicopter by Anjiah and one way traffic by Chenna Reddy. Call it ironical,(it would be cruel to call poetic justice) later CMs used the helicopters too and YSR died in it. The much maligned one way is still one way. The total tenure of Telangana CMs in 55 years is less than 65 months.
    Naxalism: Realistically, this issue is not new and not specific to any areagoing to be differently managed by any one state. It is impacting other areas in AP like Guntur and Prakasam
    KCR: Justice for Telangana is not to be confused or tied to KCR's personality. Politicians come in all shapes and sizes with different strengths and weaknesses and personal styles . To his credit he sacrificed his portfolio and would sure be glad to give Telangana CM post to a Congress candidate, if necessary. He changed parties solely keeping end in mind. Leaders emerge to fill the vacuum, Ask any one how they felt at deaths of Nehru, Indira Gandhi, or Rajiv.
    Language as unifying factor: Language is a good reason but not adequate reason if the constituents are discriminated. Andhras excel in making fun of Telangana language and culture in every possible opportunity be in movies, news papers or conversation except the explicit purpose of One state. Do not take my word but see any movie or read any news paper.
    Phobia for more new states: It is equal and co-development, equality of opportunities from government perspective,affirmative action, sticking to agreements, covenants and tribunals. Andhras have flouted Gentlemen's agreement, 610 GO, Bachavat tribunal, sharing of natural resources etc. Language cant ruse for baiting and exploitation. It has to be a justice
    Denying a justice in the name of sticking to artificial number of states is no going to quell the injustice.

    Think like a common man in Telangana or any other neglected region, and not a distant and holistic/ universal perpective. Long live India

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 2:15pm on 15 Dec 2009, LIm Kheak Wei wrote:

    To indiablogger815 post number 41
    Sir, please read your history.China was first united in 221 BC under Emperor Qin Shih Huang Di,after a period of 600 to 700 years of civil wars.Since then there has been a single written language,civil service,money and laws and more important,the first Emperor introduced meriotcracy into Chinese civil service and society.Now 92% of China's 1.32 billion people count and think of themselves as a single ethnic group though in actual fact they speak mutually unintelligible languages.There are no caste,class,religious or language classifications among Chinese.What is then a better defination on a single nation?By contrast,India for most part of its long history existed more as a cultural entity rather than as a national entity.The last'Indian'nation before British rule was the Mughal Empire.It was central Asian and if I am not wrong the language of court was persian and it did not control most of southern India.In contrast the last Chinese Empire,the Manchus ruled China as Chinese and they incooperated Manchuria as a part of China.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 4:14pm on 15 Dec 2009, Aadhaar wrote:

    Yeah, I knew that. And it is true that China has been by and large, on a whole, quite homogeneous. But I would like to point out that the Qin dynasty collapsed very soon after it came to power. There have been several times in Chinese history when the present Chinese regions have been occupied by multiple kingdoms (Jin and Qing dynasties were outsiders, if I remember by history lesson correctly)... But that is history. Forget about it, we're getting sidetracked. What I was referring to was the present situation. There are pockets in China which are hotbeds for violence (based on ethnic relations) - the Uighur and Tibetan regions where there are separatist elements. My main point is that China is also ethnically quite diverse - not as much as India, but it is diverse. And I think that is a good thing, and you ought to be proud of that just as I am proud of India's diversity. Only problem - all this diversity brings a lot of headaches. Just look at Indians. :p

    By all means, create the state. But not when the world is in an economic crisis! Creation of states is a costly affair. I'll give an example: You remember Bangalore being renamed to Bengaluru? It cost over 50 crore rupees. Just imagine the amount that will need to be spent on the creation of an entire state.

    Besides one thing which I want to stress the point made by G B Reddi, creation of any state is akin to starting a company - it needs money. A lot of it. Like many smaller states (or regions) Telangana does not have it. At least not enough to head on the path to prosperity. Or does the future Telangana state just plann to suck resources from the center and Hyderabad (golden goose)? If you want to see what happens to a state without money, look at Jharkhand - wonderful state that is!

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 6:18pm on 15 Dec 2009, Vivek Reddy wrote:

    I entirely agree that the new state creation means diverting funds for redundant buildings ( Assemly, MLA, MP, Ministers buildings,Naming etc) and should not be resorted as first step for mitigating grievances. I truly mean no illwill to Andhra region with with I have very close association.
    In case of Telangana, after seeing that all the previous awards for remedying the situation have been violated systematically by state government, demerger of state is last recourse. Desired end result is a Telangana to develop atleast 75% of Andhra level and not separation per se. It is an extreme but necessary step after a long wait.

    On sucking resources for new state, Telangana's contribution to present state disproportionately higher to its area while reinvestement in it is converse.I am sure you are also aware that Telangana WAS a state by itself with all the buildings until 1955 before merger with Andhra. So it is not separation but a demerger reverting to an earlier 'state'.
    With CMs concentrating on respective regions beyond Hyderabad for growth, Andhra region, in my sincere view will be better off too, with a new high court, new super speciality hospitals, new airport, kakinada port, Viza port, Sea Food processing etc; with Rayalaseema with better tourims and food processing in Chittoor area while Telangana would get new dams, new railway lines, newer roads and educational institutions.

    To reassure any one on the doubts of a stable Telangana, may I reiterate that we were a separate state before Andhra merged with it and it will be overall fine with people from all other regions enjoying their rights in Hyderabad or other parts of Telangana

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 7:27pm on 15 Dec 2009, Aadhaar wrote:

    Actually, I was not aware of that. I was under the impression that parts of present Andhra Pradesh were in the Madras Presidency. Potti Sreeramallu wished for the creation of a state for Telugu people, as a disciple of Gandhi, he undertook a fast unto death - after his death, hell broke loose and the center had to bow down and created AP. However, I did not know that Telangana continued to exist outside AP till '56. I learned a new thing. :)

    That said, all what you have mentioned requires a lot of money. And that is my entire problem with Telangana (though this "separate state" demand spillover is arguably on par with the fiscal concerns). I don't think either (or any one) of us can answer the question for the fiscal feasibility of Telangana. Nothing would be better if Telangana does develop rapidly. But can it be done? I hope so, but so far, the track record for the new states of India since 2001 has been sketchy. Till a time, I was under the impression that Chattisgarh had the best record but when this Naxal thing started to rear it's head again since 2007, even that went down the dumps.. I just get wary of that history.

    PS: I know that people will come out and say "but what about the track record of the normal states?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:50pm on 15 Dec 2009, indiablogger815 wrote:


    Well, the status quo option doesn't seem very attractive to the Telengana people ? Anyways, I dont know the specifics of the problem & so I'm not qualified to debate on it further. As an Indian, I'm happy when my fellow countrymen are happy. I sincerely pray that my brothers find happiness, however they want to define it.

    @LIm Kheak Wei

    Again sir, you are educated in a propaganda school. I hope you would study the past and present of your own country with an open mind & come to conclusion. Just ask yourself if there is a single identity, how come there are 55 ethnic groups in China ? Its very ironical that China boasts of culture - what culture ? The only ones spared during Cultural Revolution. (As an Indian, who is raised in the culture of rejoicing the preservation of cultures, I'm saddened at the loss of Chinese culture). Co-existence is a fundamental quality of Asian (S,E,SE) countries. China has lost its Asian roots and has become more like a European country. Interestingly, EU is fascinated by ideas of "unity in diversity" and becoming more like an Asian empire !!!

    "There are no caste,class,religious or language classifications among Chinese.What is then a better defination on a single nation?"

    Tibetans, Uighurs & Mongolians are not Han. So you admit that China has no business in occupying Tibet, Xinjiang & Inner Mongolia ? You also admit that any non-Han region is automatically non-Chinese, hence China has no claims to Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Aksai Chin ? Thank you.

    "The last'Indian'nation before British rule was the Mughal Empire"

    Yeah, before the Mughals entered, India was a dense forest inhabited by homo-erectus. Allah promised the Indian land to the ultra civilized God's people from Central Asia & voila we have India ! Yea, Glory to the One true God !!! /s

    I wonder if you get your Indian sub-continent history directly shipped from Pakistani Madarasas. Have you heard "Maha Bharatha" ? It literally means "Great India", one of the world's oldest literature. You might find it interesting that it references a people called "cheen" who lived in Tibet. There was also an Emperor called "Ashoka". Read about him. Your ancestors probably owe him a lot. He was instrumental in spreading Buddhism throughout the world.

    And we also own the bragging rights for the word "Mandarin", which has Sanskrit root (language of mandiri (ministers)) :) Enough derailing the topic. Have a nice day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 05:27am on 16 Dec 2009, sulaiman wrote:

    More states means opening windows of opportunity for currupt politicinas who are lined, both ruling and opposition parties, for 5-year or more term governership for newly built states. Indian poor still feed around 27 unnecessary governers for only for them to get salary and power. Media are full of inexperienced journalist who forget or commercilaizing every events in India.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 08:25am on 16 Dec 2009, Anthonypillai wrote:

    Why India is against the formation of a sovereign state TAMIL EELAM. The Indians create new states whenever they see the need to satisfy a minority in their country. Why they always meddle up in other countries affair and support criminal regime for mass killings. It is a shame that India is run by mafia style corrupted gang.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 1:46pm on 16 Dec 2009, neha damani wrote:

    We have lesser no. of states in comparision to US despite having population far more than they have is authentic ofcourse.And the fact that more no. of states would give more recognition to them in respect of issues like education,finance,and all socio,political and cultural arenas.But,despite having a pre Gvt which is highly corrupt and rouge to their obligations,thinking of the post Gvt with the add on features in corruption stratergies,isn't erroneous?
    Carving out the state from a state is not a problem but for whom we are carving out if do not gain something then undoubtedly,the whole process would not seem viable.when an issue is raised we have to use our common sense and keep in mind the repercussions we have to face in future by single indecisive action of ours.
    Once the state is carved out the procedure of the formation of Gvt wd start who wd again start demanding financial and all bla bla powers.nobody can even imagine how much money these politicians having HYENA’s appetite for wealth wd gobble at,is the problem over? Target has still not been achieved.These challenges posed to the Gvt. every now n then will amputate Indias integrity and ofcouse wd lay an axe to the very root of it. So, in nutshell we need to put are brains into the preexisting global challenges and put a permanent deadlock to these ,although not meaningless,but ofcourse unimportant disputes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 3:43pm on 16 Dec 2009, sasidhar wrote:

    @LIm Kheak Wei,

    please worry about china and the rights of chinese., this topic is completely internal to India., we are just fighting for our rights and the ways and means of providing ourselves with good administration and governance. This is like family members in a family fighting about who should have bigger bedroom.. infact its good, we will find out a solution to improve our living. So you please worry about providing better rights to Tibetans and Ugihurs etc.


    R u an escaped LTTE member hiding in London., Tamilnadu is the most patriotic and wealthy state in India and it is proud of its acheivements, so please do your propaganga in the suburbs of London., not here..

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 2:35pm on 18 Dec 2009, Vai Jalajam wrote:

    HellO soutwik,
    I am commenting on the line "Clearly the federal government faltered over Telangana. It could have held all-party talks before announcing the first steps towards a new state. Instead, it made an unilateral midnight announcement, thinking everybody would fall into line. "

    The fact is all regional parties, LEFT, Right and center,PRP, TDP etc all vouched for formation of Telangana before the election. Everyone was in agreement. It was only Congress that said it did not have a clear stand. All the other parties were ready. Even Manmohan Singh said with Loksatta leader that he never thought the local leaders would change their tongues on the formation of telangana. It is not an overnight announcement. It is a very well thought-over-for-a-year announcement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 6:27pm on 19 Dec 2009, kobieroxx wrote:

    I really started thinking now that how thoughtless is Congress Party now after seeing the declaration of Processing Telangana as a state. Every One in Andhra Pradesh Know that the main reason behind K.C.R's drama is for Power and Name.How can Chidambaram Or Sonia Gandhi make any decision without even discussing with Chief Minister of the state.

    This clearly explains that Congress party is just trying to break the country and try to maintain their power.

    Shame Shame

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 6:35pm on 19 Dec 2009, kobieroxx wrote:


    Please Don't try to give any powerful tags like Telangana Tiger or Telangana Hero to K.C.R . Every one knows about him and his tactics .He is Not worth of those Tittles. Infact there are many Real Heroes who have lost their Lives . We will not be upset even if you don't write about them , But please Please Donot give this K.C.R much hype who is not even worth for a Penny .

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 06:55am on 20 Dec 2009, nemo64 wrote:

    Self determination is 'a double-edged sword'.It cuts both ways.To turn a deaf ear to the clamour for autonomy would amount to a denial of democratic rights,liberty ,equality and justice and yet to concede to the demand would be to encourage the creation of an unending number of economically weak small states.Already the truncated state of West Bengal is feeling the heat.The agitation for Gorkhaland has been revived.We dont know if the Kamtapuris will follow suit.I daresay it won't be long before the domino effect starts happening in other states leading to unrest and instability.Not a happy 'state' to be in surely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 08:43am on 20 Dec 2009, nemo64 wrote:

    forgive the bad pun

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 1:58pm on 20 Dec 2009, funniinnit wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 63. At 4:29pm on 21 Dec 2009, Vivek Reddy wrote:

    Other than Language (or hollow words of brotherhood), what is one good reason for Telangana to be part of Andhra Pradesh

    We, Telangana people agree that we speak Telugu ( even at that Andhras deride us in all form of media- but that is not the topic here) but that alone can't be the reason to be together. There are many states that speak Hindi. Also, we ourselves were different states with Telangana existed independently between 1948 and 1956,and Andhra between 1953 and 1956.
    Telangana did not ask to join Andhra but otherway round, and the union of the two was based on sharing of resources per Gentlemen's agreement. There were multiple agitations to seek justice for flouting the varoius agreements and awards.

    Telangana has following reasons to ask to be separated.
    1. Over 250000 government jobs meant for Telangana ( not private sector) are occupied by Andhra people in violatin of agreements and GOs
    2. Andhra has diverted and continue to divert water resources beyond awarded quantities on both Krishna and Godavari
    3. Investments in education- number of primary schools, high schools, colleges of all levels and infrasturcture between the districts ( Tel,Andhra& RS 10/94) is not in equal proporation of population, area or other metrics. The per student grant to Telangana student is about half of Rayalaseema.
    4. Telangana lands have been sold or leased to favour Andhra development and Andhra entrepreneurs
    5. No major railway line has been built in Telangana in the last 50 years (Karimnagar is very small and recent one)
    6. Political power is skewed against Telangana ( 109 Vs 190 MLAs) and there can be never justice without a will from Andhra's to forego some of the jobs and resources they have usurped.
    7. Andhra people ( and most readers) are dazzled with Hyderabad and are mistaking it to be Telangana. If you go to Adilabad,Nizambad,Karimnagar, interior Medak, Mahabubnagar, or flouride ravage Nalgonda, one would know the fate of the common man ( Please note that Godavari and Krishan flow through these districts but does not benefit them)

    Andhras want to be together with Telangana for reason of protecting the jobs gotten in violation of agreements and to divert and assert rights on more of water.

    What is that single reason or benefit that Andhras have to offer to Telangana to be with them? Language? Snatching the food from your richer but weaker sibling in the name of language is not a lofty justification. There needs more than that - the empty rhetoric of brotherhood that has being seen in the past 54 year can't hold water any more.
    To be together, we need development to share same quality of life. And for that, we need to have same per capita cost of irrigation water, same number of roads or railway lines, per sq Km or per unit of population, same number of hospital beds, doctors, same number of schools,same number of government jobs, power availability, vocational schools etc If any Andhra reader travels to interior Telangana he would notice that the divide is too deep and difference in the quality of life too large between two regions. Andhra leaders did not have the will to forego their interests all these years when they had a chance to make Telangana people as a part of AP and why would they with an inbuilt and assured majority?
    So what is that ONE GOOD REASON to be united? ( Language or brotherhood rhetoric are passe)

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 4:34pm on 22 Dec 2009, chakkar wrote:

    Two words: decentralised socialism.

    As difficult as it is to stomach, all federal systems have to push for more decentralisation. You cannot effectively govern states that are more than 30-million people, imho.

    Socialism is an almost taboo word in the globalisation era. The fact is that socialism is the system towards which human thought is evolving. Think in evolutionary time, not decades or centuries. Co-operation with one another has made humans this successful (try a one-on-one au naturel with a tiger).

    To those who would think linguistic lines will further fracture India, consider that linguistic lines allow smaller cultures to flourish. Over the longer term, this will help India. A rain forest's diversity is its strength.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 7:11pm on 22 Dec 2009, Nag wrote:

    I am replying to the commenters who listed the facts about regional incomes and acquiring jobs illegally.
    Excluding Hyderbad, how much income comes from Telangana and what percentage is spent in Telangana?
    Alloting lands to Andhra companies.
    This happens every where. For example look at Vizag export zones or Vanpick (Port area between Ongole and Nizampatnam).
    About the dams and canals in coastal Andhra.
    British built some canals and barrages across Godavari and Krishna. It happened every where. Most of the dams were built at the lower ends of rivers. What if Karnataka build dams every where in it's area and nothing flows down?
    Why did all these people came to Hyderabad? Because it is the state capital and there is govt., jobs and other opportunities.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 01:48am on 23 Dec 2009, Rajeevs wrote:

    In response for Sasidhar! Please do not spread lies on International Media, they have their tools to cross check the truth. Now coming to your claim No 1 ) Calling Telangana region is historically underdeveloped as lands are not fertile like the coastal Andhra.
    Answer ) Check the budget of independent Telangana's budget and Andhra's budget before the merger. Telangana had surplus budget and its the only state with surplus funds in Indian Union. Andhra did not even had the funds for starting their own educational institution.
    Claim 2) 50 percentage of people in Hyderabad are Andhra .
    Answer Only 4.5 lakhs of Andhra people stay with 4 crore people of Telangana.
    Part 2 Answer ) If as you said if Telangana was poor why did the people come to Telangana from Andhra?. don't you feel shamed that this is contradictory as people move towards green grass.
    Your Claim 3 ) Fertile lands are more in andhra than in Telangana.
    Answer ) How did you have fertile lands? do you know...Nagarjunsagar was built 20km from its present location after merging with andhra hence andhra has deceived people of Telangana. Telangana's ayucut (fertile land) was twice before the merger.
    Part 2 Answer ) Krishna and Godavari rivers travel 3 times the distance than in Andhra before letting of into the sea. So if we start building dams and though of have more cultivation in Telangana Andhra would have been barren.
    One more thing Telangana is not today demand it is 50 years demand so anytime there was a chance of separation. So no one took the cue and developed Telangana so that people would have not been at the cross roads of separation today.
    And you are so much bleeding in your heart for 100 of your relatives who are no matter are and will be living peacefully even after separation, but what about 1000's of Telangana farmers who have died due to neglecting water supply to telangana fields?
    And what about the budget you are talking about? 60-65% of funds come from telangana but Telangana only gets 28% and below and the rest goes to Andhra. Even 2 days back govt sanctioned 139 crores, out of this only 10 crores went to Telangana rest to andhra( can't you see the difference).
    And people can see your discriminating words saying that coastal students go to premier institutions, by the above words you declare a andhrite. How are they going its the blood of Telangana farmers. Its not just Telangana, Andhra people are by birth selfish, their fight for separation from madras itself speaks volumes of andhra opportunism.
    Its easy to post things but its hard to keep aside the sides and putting human side on perspective.
    And do not even talk about bloodbath in metropolis, can't you see who is supporting grudges. So try to think like human. If Telangana gets separated then according to state water sharing Telangana will get its right for equal waters and its budget will be spent on itself. More govt educational institutions (not like yours) to educate the rural Telangana.
    So my friend first you have to Indian so that you don't stoop so low to show parity between region within same state. In the last its the people who have to be better off.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 07:00am on 23 Dec 2009, Rajeevs wrote:

    What ever the result. One great thing in this whole fiasco is that people all over Andhra Pradesh have come together cutting across castes. Thats a good outcome. That is why Indian constitution architect Mr. Ambedkar has suggested smaller states.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 7:29pm on 04 Jan 2010, A wrote:

    Yes, infact the more the better.

    Before those factions start yelling... it is better to run a big company with departments... Chattisgarh is a true example... that part of the country was not even known be aside visited... the creation of the capital city the government buildings the involvement of its people with the centre brought forward its development. Uttaranchal/ Uttarakhand is much better off without being part of Uttar Pradesh. that elephant of population was pulling that part of population down, with all its power and power problems.

    Similar is teh case with Andhra Pradesh, too much population very few people deciding for them, the result is ofcourse chunk ofpopulation not involved unheard or left to fend for themselves, and that is people of Telangana!

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 03:32am on 05 Jan 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:


    Honestly, NO...India doesn't need more states...

    -Dennis Junior-

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 09:01am on 05 Feb 2010, Jashan wrote:

    A very well written article. I totally support it. YES INDIA NEEDS MORE STATES. The bigger states in India has the lowest HDI indexes in India. Even in Maharashtra, a exception to bigger states, the eastern part is at same level as that of BIMARU states.
    All said I am also breaking the states too small in size, ie of the size of GOA etc. How to govern the sizes. I would like to go by the Team Management Principles. A best team is of the size between 5 to 25. For states the team size is reflected by no of MP's or DM's, which generally are similar. TO my surprise most of the states lying in the good management zones have done well!!!.
    Hence its high time to have more states so that people have better governance and government focus. People really interested in this topic can read the blog


    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 11:47am on 16 Feb 2010, Madhav wrote:

    No, there is no necessity of more no. of states....

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 4:16pm on 22 Feb 2010, nitu wrote:

    How many Telanganites living in Andhra have a secured life? Let alone Andhra have anyone thought whether Telanganites were living a secured life in their own native place? I hail from Adilabad and am connected a lot to Karimnagar. To begin the discussion take for an instance, all the coal mines in Telangana have a majority of Telanganites working, digging and carrying coal. They do all this at the cost of their lives. It's fair that these Singarenians enjoy many facilities like free drinking water(of R.Godavari),free power supply, free gas connections, a minimum salary to fulfill their needs and their kin go abroad. This may seem that they are really happy with their tasks and family. But what about the non-singarenians? Only when the same sort of opportunities will be provided to many people the Telanganites can happily live in their places. It doesn't mean that everyone should be employed into some industry or the other because if there are no farmers then there would be a crisis in Telangana. Few districts of Telangana are really green with crops but that is just minority. Maj. of them are barren lands with farmers owning lands, due to lack of water resources, go for daily labor.
    There is a great concentration of tribes in Telangana. But the tribals are literally ignored to a great extent.There is no sort of development in those remote areas. Wow! The cultural pearls and ratnas of A.P. are being ignored and we act as if we were DUMB-DUCKS? Hahaha.
    I don't support the motive of separate Telangana but just want uniform distribution of development in all the areas of Andhra Pradesh. I guess in near future,young talent rules politics and hope that they change the face and fate of Andhra Pradesh positively with no discriminations such as 'you are a Telanganite and so go and die there' or 'you hail from Rayalaseema and stop dominating the others'. I really feel bad if Telangana becomes a separate state because it breeds the idea of bifurcation of states which is never good(Eg:Jharkhand). Try to imagine the map of A.P. If telangana gets separated it seems as if the head of A.P. is cut which really and badly affects the development of Andhra,Rayalaseema and Telangana bearing no exception.

    Thank you Mr.Redddi,Preethi,Viveik,Shashidhar for sharing your views on Telangana and thanks for the information on Telangana which remained obscured to many even now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 4:12pm on 24 Feb 2010, Krishna Reddy Dommata wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 74. At 4:42pm on 28 Feb 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    To speak honestly, I don’t know how India operates – as big as she is.
    It would be like Canada – ten provinces and three territories - trying to operate as one state, one country. It would be chaos.
    I know that many Indians fear the creation of small states. They have legitimate concerns, such as the division of India will make her weaker; the small states will be dependent on the Central Government; small states may not be economically viable…
    Not being Indian, I’m sure there are many more valid concerns that I should've included.
    There is a history to some of these fears. Remember the Battle of Plessey?
    Robert Clive with 300 white soldiers won the battle.
    He won the battle by defeating more than 50,000 Indian soldiers.
    The Indians surrendered because their local leader said: surrender.
    Today an Indian fighter fights for India – all of India.
    Creating small states will not take India backwards to the British era. India is one country now and after creating small states, it will remain one country with several states (like the United States of America).
    In fact it is the love for India that will hold the country together (like Canada or the United States).
    Consider this:
    Uttar Pradesh with population of more @ 170M is bigger than Germany + France. This is too big to be administratively efficient & effective.
    In fact, China, America, Brazil and Indonesia are the only nations that are bigger than Uttar Pradesh.
    Bihar is bigger than Mexico. Bengal is bigger than the Philippines – Enough! I think that you get my point.
    Big states tend to negate progress; big states are simply too unwieldy, and cannot respond eficiently and effectively to local concerns.
    I think that India needs to divide into smaller states where commonalties are shared (e.g. language or traditions), and change its format to the the Indian Federation of States, or the United States of India – united under a Federal Government with a constitution that clearly seperates the responsibilities between states and the Federal Government.
    The current Indian constitution has article 3 which talks about the creation of new state. It states that:
    “Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. If the party who support the creation of small state does not win the election, this does not mean that the people of that district do not want separate state.”
    It will take a lot of wisdom to bring about this creation of smaller states - wisdom, fairness, geopolitcal analysis, negotiating, voting…
    But when the mission has been accomplished, India will be a better, stronger country than before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 11:53pm on 07 Mar 2010, H Zadoo wrote:

    Good question. Expressions borrowed from Westerns sum up my thoughts:
    - What part of NO, don't you understand.
    - Not just NO, but Hell NO.

    There needs to be a well thought through process and cogent inference ladder of assertions that lead to such critical decisions. It is not clear that either of these are used in India's corridors of power. At least not one that is broadly shared outside the crypts of North/South Blocks. Neither does Mr. Biswas guide us with such details in the article, dwelling only on superficial factors, such as language. Peace and Love.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 3:29pm on 09 Mar 2010, Krishna wrote:

    The only time India is seen as united was when getting independence in 1947, when India is playing Cricket, when there is conflict with neighbors.

    At all other times, they is mayhem between and within the states. To name few

    - Sharing water amongst all south Indian states.
    - Maoists problem across 10 states seeking independent governance.
    - Naxalite extremism.
    - ULFA in Assam.
    - Naga rebels in Nagaland.
    - Jharkhand issue.
    - Telangana and Andhra.
    - Gujjar issue in Rajasthan.
    - Kashmir issue.
    - Bundelkhand problem.
    - Corruption at all levels of governance.
    - 2000 plus political parties.

    With all the above stated, why does anyone think India is united. ? Perhaps breaking up like former Soviet republics would help resolving some of the above stated burning issues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 7:28pm on 18 Mar 2010, MOHI wrote:


    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS


Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.