A New State in India: Telangana

Posted on by

The biggest story in India this week appears to be the central government’s agreement to allow a new state to be carved out of Andhra Pradesh, called Telangana. The new state will include the tech-powerhouse city of Hyderabad, and will be predominantly Telugu-speaking. One news article I read put the estimated population of the new state at 35 million people.

Here is what the new state will look like

telengana map.jpg

I have known of agitations for a separate Telangana state for awhile, though I must admit I do not know the history in depth, and would be glad to be enlightened by readers who know the region better than I do. However, Wikipedia does offer a few helpful background facts. First, the region that will become Telangana was, during British colonialism, part of the Princely State of Hyderabad, and was only formally merged into Andhra in 1956 — and even then, the merger was controversially imposed by the central government. The agitations for a separate state have been going on for at least 40 years; in 1969, 400 people were killed in agitations for a separate state of Telangana.

I had earlier thought that language was a factor in the demands for Telangana, but in fact language is not mentioned by supporters of this movement, since Telugu is spoken in the other half of Andhra as well. Rather, the focus seems to be on access to irrigation and economic opportunity (see this interview). Are there other factors that people know of?

The news has resulted in the mass resignation of Congress Party-allied MLAs in the other part of Andhra Pradesh, suggesting that the Central Government may not be able to easily sustain its promise to create Telangana without making lots of new promises to the other half of the state. That, or we might see one of those major regional political realignments in Indian politics that can cause seemingly strong governments to fall. (Incidentally, the BJP had promised to create a Telangana state when it was in power, but was unable to do so. However, during the BJP’s five years in power it did create three new states in northern India.)

The news is also expected to give a new boost to other statehood agitation movements in other parts of India; Gorkhaland is one that is often mentioned.

Do you support the creation of Telangana? Isn’t it possible that acceding to these statehood movements in India might lead to a further weakening of an already weak central government? Also, do you think these movements might feed a sense of monoculturalist ‘separateness’ that could make the region a less inviting place for people from different ethno-linguistic backgrounds who happen to live there?

145 thoughts on “A New State in India: Telangana”

  1. Lets go back to the good old days; dissolve the Republic of India and revert back to princely states. I wanna be one of those kings with the chicks, bling and all that shit.

  3. This is totally just for fun: in this video, KCR describes some of the differences in the dialects spoken in Telangana and Andhra. My point was not to argue that linguistic and cultural differnces are the reason for the call for separation. But just to show that these differences do exist and that this does make the dialect spoken in BOTH regions unique to the people of those regions. Also, the video is mostly in Telugu, sorry if you don’t understand

  7. Kalyan – Please stop giving out false information. The majority of Chief Ministers that the state of Andhra Pradesh has had are NOT from the Telangana region. Please look into the facts that you write before you write them. In fact, only four individuals out of the 15 chief ministers so far hail from the Telangana region, including: Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao (PV Narasimha Rao), Jalagam Vengala Rao, Marri Chenna Reddy, Tanguturi Anjaiah. This information can also be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Minister_of_Andhra_Pradesh

  8. the concept of “India” as a nation as we know it today didn’t really exist.

    The concept of India as a ‘nation’ or ‘civilization’ is very old and has resisted repeated invasions/colonizations, often by convincing/persuading the colonizers.

    It is the idea of India as a ‘state’ that is somewhat new.

  11. i fail to understand why people refer to this as balkanization. they don’t wish to hate their neighbors, nor is it a war, nor will it affect free movement of people—in fact, the day the state is formed, no one will even realize it.

    what is happening is that different people in india want more self determination—which is a good thing. the british had 4 provinces, because, frankly they didn’t give a damn after they looted and pillaged. linguistic reorganization allowed everyone to be subsumed by hindi. less developed—or regions that perceive neglect will want to be more visible.

    in fact, most states in india are way bigger (population wise) than the biggest states in the US. this is going to continue, and it is for the better as far as i am concerned.

  12. *linguistic reorganization allowed everyone to be subsumed by hindi.

    linguistic reorganization prevented everyone from being subsumed by hindi.

    sorry!

  13. The salient schisms between Telangana and Andhra arise from geography and history: coastal vs plateau interior; Nizam-ruled vs British ruled. These things determine both the state of economic development and the linguistic-cultural differences. Also, as Amardeep mentioned right in the beginning, Andhra and the Nizam’s Hyderabad were merged after Hyderabad’s incorporation into India. The Nizam wanted to become ‘South Pakistan’ – he actually underwrote, through his personal wealth, the Pakistan Government’s expenses for the first few weeks/months! So, as soon as his dominion was ‘liberated’, the Central Government may have wanted to immerse it in its surroundings, to dissipate its linguistic-religio-cultural distinctness. They didn’t do this with Goa – for example, it was not absorbed into the then Bombay state – but if they had, that would have been analogous.

    However, a mere administrative merger cannot erase real economic-geographical differences on the ground, which have persisted, especially in the absence of responsive governance. Therein lies the rationale for a new state. The linguistic rationale, the reason for the original Andhra Pradesh, is not the ssue here, although parts of the Telangana area do speak a version of Urdu and Marathi that might not be spoken in the Andhra part.

    Therefore the justification for a new state must take place on the ground that the area is in a different state of development, has a different economic geography, and aspects of its old political economy still persist. The new state would represent then an attempt to provide a more responsive governance structure given the distinct needs of the area.

    Although, as I pointed out above, there was once a danger that this area would become ‘independent’ or ‘part of Pakistan’, that is no longer an issue. Rather, administrative convenience, actual viability as an administrative unit (demonstrated by its history), and the desire for a more responsive governance structure are the issues. I don’t see any problem with the new state, especially since it would be larger both in area and in population than several other existing states.

    Next in line, with an almost identical rationale, would be Vidarbha, which is interior Maharashtra, headquartered at Nagpur. It would actually border the new Telangana. Similarly, there are any number of states that UP should be split up into – perhaps five is a good start. And yes, Gorkhaland out of West Bengal. Even if, today, these new states correspond closely to existing linguistic-cultural differences, at bottom there are deeper economic and geographical issues. Their creation can have many positive impacts and they are certainly non-zero-sum as far as India itself is concerned – this is not the old ‘divide and rule’ – a complete red herring in this context.

    In the short term, there will be any number of hiccups, but an India of 50 states by, say, 2050, may well happen.

  14. India being India, which of the outcomes do readers generally assume to be the likely result of this re-organization.

    A) Governments in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh become more efficient (and smaller) and quality of governance improves.

    or

    B) Governments in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh become less efficient (and larger) and quality of governance worsens.

    I suspect the answer will ultimately be closer to B than A. I am not sure if quality of governance will see any great change for better or worse, but I can assure you that it will become less efficient and more bureaucratic. Shrinking bureaucracies is a sisyphean task in the best of times with powerful entrenched actors who do not want the gravy train of government money to end. The creation of a new state will entail more employment opportunities for new babus and new politicians, this is a given. However, even though Andhra Pradesh may no longer be as large as it once was, it is almost guaranteed that it’s staff and budget will not see a proportional reduction.

  16. Isn’t it possible that acceding to these statehood movements in India might lead to a further weakening of an already weak central government?

    I thought it was pretty much settled that linguistic reorganization had been a net benefit for India. Just look at Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka. Didn’t People ask the same question before linguistic reorganisation.

    What evidence do you have that center is weaking? Congress seems to be making a comeback as national party. All trends I see point eventually towards a two party system. You seem to be forgetting multiple identities model. Just because people choose a sub-regional identity means they are willing to give up or diluting national identity.

    Don’t listen to the culture/lingustic argument. The difference is same as between any two points seperated by 100km anywhere in India(magnified by Internet anonymity). And I don’t support separate telengana.

  17. the Central Government may have wanted to immerse it in its surroundings, to dissipate its linguistic-religio-cultural distinctness

    The danger existed solely in your own imagination. If you are not from the region or haven’t studied it. It is best if you take a leaf from Amardeep and ask questions instead of speculating.

  18. Who cares if you don’t like it. Lakhs of Telangana people like to happen and it is upto their wish if they want a seperate governance. And don’t think this happened of KCR. This revolution was from all classes of people – Professors, Students, Journalists, Lawyers, Govt Employees, Singhareni Employees, Labor Unions, etc…..

  19. I think people are missing the point here -> first of all, even though Telangana people have some sociocultural and linguistic differences from their Andhra peers, this is not the argument as to why Telanganaites want their own state. Like I said before, these differences do exist, but it is not the main reason and definitely not a justified reason for a separate Telangana state.

    The underdevelopment of the region and lack of representation of the Telangana people over the years are the main causes for this movement.

  20. Sai and Sandbox : That video takes liberties with facts. It would help if they provided original source documents. Quoting historical documents provides historical context, but it doesn’t help what we should do now. “The area is arid, but the rivers gather 2/3rds of their water in Telengana”.

    I once met a history professor of OU and social activist and we started talking about Telengana. I asked him, would people’s condition improve if telengana was created then (~2007). He said NO, but it would give people emotional solace/peace/some such crap. I have long lost respect for the telengana intellectuals, who twist facts. The region has been discriminated against. No impartial observer can deny that. But it is also, a poor area, in terms of resources, both natural and human.

    It is interesting that naxalite and telengana movements have a see-saw relationship. As soon as one movement becomes weak, the other becomes strong. Both movements are fed by same fundamental force (economic deprivation). These movements have petered out due to leadership issues and that alone proves separate state will be a disaster. There is no immediate leader in telengana, TRS& KCR lost badly in elections. KCR is a jerk and can’t hold power for long. The new elites will start screwing poor. Naxalite insurgency against the new elites will resume. Benefits of any new irrigation project is atleast a decade away. With fewer people based on agriculture, not sure what good they would do.

  21. 62 · voiceinthehead

    The danger existed solely in your own imagination. If you are not from the region or haven’t studied it. It is best if you take a leaf from Amardeep and ask questions instead of speculating.

    Do please consider reading what I actually wrote, in full and in context, rather than listening to the voices in your head! 🙂 However, I agree with all props to Amardeep.

  22. Professors, Students, Journalists, Lawyers, Govt Employees, Singhareni Employees, Labor Unions

    Telengana elites want to steal land from andhra elites. Govt employees, professors want to benefit from GO 610. Naxalites under the cover of labour unions want to regain power. Students are stupid. IT jobs aren’t location dependent, they will go to Vizag or some other new place or existing place.

    The fight for HYD will be bitter. If TRS can threaten violence so can Andhra too. Andhra elites have their entire fortunes at stake and they will fight a bitter fight. This is far from settled.

  23. About the documentary that was posted, I believe it was posted to show why the Telangana people want their own state and to show their suffering. It was not necessarily to show what should be done.

  24. In reply to Voiceinthehead: To your statement: “Benefits of any new irrigation project is atleast a decade away. With fewer people based on agriculture, not sure what good they would do.” Well atleast with a seperate state being formed, we could hope for new irrigation projects after a decade. If Telangana continues to be a part of AP, then we will not see that happen even after 50 yrs. And even now more than 70% of Telangana people depend on Agriculture for their livelihood. And if you want original documents why don’t you get some supporting your argument.

  25. For Voiceinthehead’s statemnt: “Telengana elites want to steal land from andhra elites. Govt employees, professors want to benefit from GO 610. Naxalites under the cover of labour unions want to regain power. Students are stupid. IT jobs aren’t location dependent, they will go to Vizag or some other new place or existing place. “

    Nobody is stealing from anyone and no one will be forced to leave Hyderabad. that is just baseless as if there is no law and order in India. And who the hell are you to term students as ‘Stupid’ (Yeah right! You are the sole INtelluctual of the whole AP)

    For “The fight for HYD will be bitter. If TRS can threaten violence so can Andhra too. Andhra elites have their entire fortunes at stake and they will fight a bitter fight. This is far from settled. ” It’s not about TRS or some damn party, it’s about the neglected masses of Telangana. Well, as you say Andhra elites have power to fight, then that’s no problem at all as they can protect their property in Hyderabad. And your statement suggests that part of the reason Andhra elites don’t want the seperation is to protect their own assets and proprty. So, the resentment from Andhra people is just about properties in Hyderabad but they don’t really care about the plight of poor farmers and students of Telangana

  26. Gujus don’t have their own state?what is Gujarat then? In 1960 Bomabay was didvided into Maharashtra and Gujarat and that was first separation of states in the hostory of India. before that there were only 14 states and 6 Union territories in India.

  27. As others have touched on above, Telangana is more backward because it was under Islamic rule until more recently than the rest of AP. They are blaming modern Indian state for their backwardness–this is nonsense.

  29. The resentment of the Telangana people towards the current government is due to failed promises. Funds to help to develop the region that are supposed to be given to the Telangana region are believed to be funneled elsewhere in the state. Here is a new article in the Times of India that explains some of these grievances further with figures: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Telangana-assets-will-be-divided-amicably-say-activists/articleshow/5324893.cms

  30. As others have touched on above, Telangana is more backward because it was under Islamic rule until more recently than the rest of AP.

    a. nobody else had touched on this above, and b. will the intern allow this garbage comment to stand? (it’s also ahistoric given how developed hyderabad city is)

  31. Gujus don’t have their own state?what is Gujarat then? In 1960 Bomabay was didvided into Maharashtra and Gujarat and that was first separation of states in the hostory of India.

    I think that was precisely Abhi’s point. Surprisingly, many of you stupidly assumed that Abhi must be ignorant of the obvious and thus missed his point.

  32. The danger existed solely in your own imagination. If you are not from the region or haven’t studied it. It is best if you take a leaf from Amardeep and ask questions instead of speculating.

    You haven’t studied it enough, if you can speculate Pakistan was some factor in merging two states. They were different states for 8 years after Hyd liberation.

    For the record, I know plenty of people from telengana who are against separate state and plenty of andhra people who want to get rid of it.

    You can’t be an arid region and still support 2/3rd of river flow. On ndtv(ibn?) someone wrote telengana is poor in this, poor in that and ends with saying 45% of state revenue comes from telengana. If you are so poor, where does the revenue come from ?

    70 Sai: I never believed the elites(andhra/telengana) cared for the poor. Poor will remain the same in telengana. My friends from the region say it is more caste ridden than andhra( though it might just be their perception). The fact that lot of people (govt employees, professors, politicians, …) support it doesn’t prove anything. They all have very narrow self-interest reasons for supporting it. If these telengana intellectuals, politicians, govt employees, students are so smart and caring for the poor, telengna would be in a much better shape. Were the naxalities in telengana fighting andhra settlers/ local oppressors.

    I agree, the movement is bigger than kcr, precisely why I believe there will be jockeying for power.

    Settlers have their own justified fears about Hyd, I am not talking just about landed elite. You might not be making any threats, but there are other who make veiled threats

  33. As others have touched on above, Telangana is more backward because it was under Islamic rule until more recently than the rest of AP.

    Last time I checked the muslim countries were miles ahead of hindu India. Ever been to Malaysia, Iran, Turkey, UAE etc????

    Hyderabadi culture, the urdu language etc has a muslim foundation. Just like Bollywood does.

  35. Gujus don’t have their own state?what is Gujarat then?

    He may be talking about Saurashtra. No reason why there can’t be two Gujarati states.

  36. believed to be funneled elsewhere in the state

    What is it that Telengana can do as separate state which it can’t do under united Andhra. Promises given have been broken. But telengana leaders have also sold themselves(M.Channa Reddy), while they should have protested. Telengana CMs haven’t done anything for the region. You can’t blame all your faults on Andhra.

    I understand there is broken trust, but there are budgetary and political mechanisms to ensure, projects are earmarked for telangana and are implemented properly.

    As a split state, Andhra’s power in central politics will decrease, if you thought, Andhrites treated you unfairly, see what a measly 12 MP seats gets you from center. APs share of Bachawat tribunal is almost fully utilized. Fresh negotiations involving Maharashtra, Karnataka will come into play if Telengana is created. Guess which states have more MPs

  37. As others have touched on above, Telangana is more backward because it was under Islamic rule until more recently than the rest of AP. They are blaming modern Indian state for their backwardness–this is nonsense.

    lol, I didn’t know we have Niall Ferugson fans here.

  38. Voiceinthehead -> “The fact that lot of people (govt employees, professors, politicians, …) support it doesn’t prove anything. They all have very narrow self-interest reasons for supporting it.” If this is true of Telangana people, it is also true of those from non-Telangana regions. With your reasoning, I can also say that Andhraites don’t want a separate Telangana state to protect their own interests.

    I agree that the fears of the settlers are Hyderabad are solid and they have good reason to be concerned, which is why even in my original post you will see that I do not support Hyderabad being a part of the Telangana state. If Hyderabad joins Telangana, it will put the city back economically and otherwise. If a separata Telangana state emerges, Hyderabad will prosper by being left as a Union Territory to continue to enjoy its status as a growing economic force in India and its cosmopolitan culture.

    I will agree with you that there are politicians and others who are greedy and corrupt. But this movement is bigger than these people. There are students who have died recently and in the past for this very cause. Calling students “stupid” is really just a bad move. Many have gone to jail and have endured a lot of pain for this cause. Once again, there may be people in this movement who are just greedy and just want to gain power, but there are a lot of others who genuinely believe in this.

    Instead of calling names and saying things that are baseless, why not share facts and information about how Telangana can benefit if a unified state continues to exist? What can/should the state government do to start fulfilling its promises to the Telangana people? How can the Telangana region be developed? A lot of people have come to the conclusion that the Telangana people’s interests can be best represented only through a separate state now. Lets talk about how this may not be the only way. If you don’t have answers for this, then at least share some facts, no name-calling and baseless information.

  39. Reply to Voiceinthehead: “My friends from the region say it is more caste ridden than andhra( though it might just be their perception).” Dude! you are talking about Caste Discrimination. That is well known fact that Whole Andhra that Caste Discrimination in Andhra is beyond limits… Kamma people don’t even talk to SC and BC people. If you think otherwise, please go to Sidhartha college in Vijyawada.. You will not find people with different caste people even talking to each other.. Please confirm the facts before you talk..

  40. “Telengana CMs haven’t done anything for the region. You can’t blame all your faults on Andhra.”

    Yes, like I said in earlier posts, Telangana has been cheated not only by non-Telanganaites but also by its own corrupt politicians. And as for why Telangana CMs havent done anything for the region, Telangana people recognize this and see this as a problem, not anything to be proud of.

    “It is true that PV Narasimha Rao, Marri Chenna Reddy (twice), T. Anjiah from Telangana were Chief Ministers of AP. Altogether they were in power for 6-years in four terms. It is also true they haven’t made any noticeable development of Telangana. Jalagam Vengal Rao was a settler. He never assimilated himself in Telangana. He is credited with the disservice to Telangana by extending Nagarjun Sagar left canal. Then what about, Rayala Seema? There were stalwarts from Rayala seems that were in power for twenty years. (N. Sanjeeva Reddy-2terms, Damodaram Sanjeeviah, K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy-2 terms, CB Naidu-2 terms). Why is Rayalaseema backward?” This is from http://www.telangana.org/TelanganaFAQ.asp. Unfortunately AP state politics is full of corrupt politicians, regardless of where they are from.

    Nor do the Telangana people blame their problems on “Andhra.” The disappointment is with the state government which has been unable to fulfill its promises. The reason for the call for a separate state is based on this disappointment with the state government and not any personal grudges against “Andhra.” The Telangana region’s people feel that their interests will be better-served in their own state.

  41. Tippo Sultan of telengana ,”I think that was precisely Abhi’s point. Surprisingly, many of you stupidly assumed that Abhi must be ignorant of the obvious and thus missed his point”

    who you calling stupids? Did you read my comment @73? I made that comment knowing Abhi’s point.Read the comments carefully before you call people stupids.

  42. It is sort of a cultural/linguistic issue, as others have said. Telugu is spoken in Telangana as in Andhra and Rayalseema, but the dialect is different.

    Wow, based on that logic, all Indian states should be split up. Take Karnataka- Konkanis need their own state because they speak an Indo-Aryan language, but a completely different dialect of it than Goan Konkani. Tuluvas need their own state because they speak a Dravidian language, but nothing like Kannada. Bearys need their own state because they are Muslim. And Coorgis need their own state because they wear saris differently. Hope I didn’t give anyone any ideas…

  43. AK – Please read other comments where it has been discussed that there are sociocultural/linguistic differences between Telangana and Andhra, but that these differences are not the main reason nor a justified reason for the call for a separate state of Telangana.

  44. In Reply to AK’s comment: “And Coorgis need their own state because they wear saris differently. Hope I didn’t give anyone any ideas…”

    Your mother maybe wearing Sari differnetly.. State your statements relevant to the Discussion goin on

  45. With your reasoning, I can also say that Andhraites don’t want a separate Telangana state to protect their own interests.

    Andhra doesn’t need Telengana. It is the real estate speculators in HYD who have greatest loss, many of them are MLAs & MPs and they are loud mouthed. I said before there are plenty of Andhra people who are happy with telengana. For common andhrites it doesn’t matter if Telengana leaves. It has enough water, fertile land, political capital, ports, transport infrastructure, universities and educated professionals. It even has gas in KG Basin and will become even more prosperous, if it doesn’t have to share gas revenues with telengana.

    If Hyd is made union territory / given joint control. There are no valid reasons for opposing telengana. I haven’t heard any pro-telengana leaders make such statement.

    Telengana would have benefited from the gas and having barren land. This might be blessing in disguise for Andhra. I stand by my statement telengana poor will be worse off in a separate state.

  46. Many interesting comments above 🙂

    Now that its morning in India, I will try to put forward my points more coherently than what I did last night.

    1.It is not true that Telangana was merged with Andhra immediately after the 1948 police action.Hyderabad state was formed and it had a separate existence till 1956, when both Hyderabad and Visalandhra were merged to form AP.There was a Gentlemen’s Agreement between leaders of all three years (Sreebagh Pact) before this happened.The movement to merge was as strong in Hyderabad state as it was in Andhra.The name ‘Telangana’ itself means ‘land of Telugus’.

    2.English education spread more rapidly in Coastal AP than in Telangana during the pre-indepedence days because of the British rule Vs Nizam rule difference.This also led to the faster rise of intermediary castes in Coastal AP (much like neighbouring TN). Compared to Coastal AP, feudalism is still much stronger in Telangana and Naxalism is almost a direct fallout of the feudal atrocities on the rural poor.

    3.The British built better irrigation facilities in areas under their control (obviously, for better tax collection) and also better communication and transport infrastructure. So, when the state of AP was formed, there was a significant gap between Hyderabad and Coastal AP. Rayalaseema, though part of Visalandhra was as backward as Telangana or more, but that’s a different story.

    3.Post-state formation, several Government Orders were put in place (Mulki rules for example), to ensure that Telangana people don’t lose out in competition against the better educated and organized Coastal Andhras.Telangana terrain was not suited for major irrigation projects and therefore the Govt went for medium and smaller irrigation projects in Telangana such as Nizam Sagar, Sriram Sagar and the like.The major industries were sought to be equally distributed between the three areas, but if one looks at it, most of the major PSU industries (BEL, BHEL, ECIL to name a few) have gone to Telangana and some to Vizag – almost none to Rayalaseema.

    4.The separate Telangana movement and the Jai Andhra movement in the late 60s and early 70s were quite violent compared to the Telangana movement in the 1990s and 2000s.KCR, till recently, used to take pride in the fact that his movement has been non-violent with not a single life lost due to the cause.That it has changed now, can be correlated to the weakening of Naxal movement in Telangana after the IT boom, and the Naxals who moved to Chattisgarh have now infiltrated the ranks of Telangana agitators.It is a well known fact that most ideologues of Telangana movement are also sympathisers of the Maoist movement.Kakatiya University which is completely dominated by Maoist elements is also the fountainhead of Telangana ideology.

    5.The politicians of Telangana (Congress and TRS mainly) see the issue as their only route to power.BJP also sees a chance to become a king maker if not a king, in a separate Telangana.Interestingly, the CPM and CPI leadership in AP is not enthusiastic about Telangana even though their strength in AP is mainly in Telangana districts. (I think they don’t see eye to eye with their Naxal brethren.)So, it is no wonder that ABVP activists in OU are in the forefront of the current agitation.And the Congress leaders who are pro-Telangana, who had lost their voice during YSR’s reign have now found a fresh energy.

    6.The situation as of now, is leading to some very inane conspiracy theories in the local media. I was watching a discussion on a Telugu channel this morning where the panelists were alleging the following: (a) Sonia/CWC see a risk in the dependency on AP with 42 LS seats.They know that YSR is not around to win them over 35 in 2014.They feel that by giving Telangana, they can count on majority of seats from the new State.That way, they will be reducing the dependency on YS Jagan or YSR’s legacy. (b)Chidambaram from TN and Veerappa Moily from KN are being influenced by lobbies from their home states. A unified AP is fast emerging as a financial, business and health care hub in South India.A divided AP will be weaker because the richer Coastal AP businessmen will lose the Hyd advantage. Also, upper riparian States like Maharashtra and KN see an advantage in dealing with a smaller Telangana than a large state such as AP. (c)Veerapa Moily is also being influenced by senior Congress leaders from Telangana. (d)Sonia Gandhi thinks its easier to manage the state congress units of two smaller states than that of a larger state with powerful Rayalaseema leaders such as YS Jagan.On one hand, Telangana leaders will be beholden to her and OTOH, caste equations in rest of AP will ensure Congress dominance there as well.

    So, there are theories and more 🙂

    The common people in Telangana have never shown the required enthu for a separate state as is evidenced by the election results time and again. And as for Telugu culture, Telangana has always contributed more than its share through its poets, scholars, painters, and the like.Some of the most noble kings of south india were from Telangana.Some of the best Telugu and Prakrit poets.A Jnanpith award winner for Telugu.A scholar-politician (PVNR).A robust culture of scientific (esp.metallurgical) innovation from medieval ages.

    My own take:

    People of Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana are like brothers.When brothers want to divide the house and go their separate ways, the discussions have to be among them.Not imposed by a high command at mid night.AP is not Sonia’s birthday cake that she can cut into pieces and give away.We need to sit down and discuss again – have a gentlemen’s agreement if required. And put the whole issue through a democratic process where people will decide and not rulers in Delhi. As long as Delhi doesn’t understand this ‘Telugu sentiment’, any solution is bound to fail and result in violence.

    Apologies for the long post.May be I have said most of what I needed to 🙂

  47. I think that most of A.P. was under the Nijam at one stage. Coastal Andhra (Circar districts) were given up to British first, then Rayalaseema (Ceded districts) and Telengana region remained under the Nijam. There were geographical differences, other differences in adiministration, development seem to have crystalized since then. Even the States Reorganization commision recommeneded against the merger of then Andhra with Telangana but there was a gentleman’s agreement between some of the leaders of Telangana and Andhra and the central government ignored the report. What the report feared seemed to have happened and probably division with all its headaches is now inevitable. Personally from what little I have seen of A.P ( I am from coastal Andhra) I do not think that there are strong linguistic or cultural differences. Perhaps different regions even if they separate can join again later if they want.

  48. I pity for my country. When will our politicians speak india first then their own agenda. When do we change and grow as a country. I pity for my country.

  49. “Au contraire, Indian integration was and remains an Indian project

    Yeah, I’m glad you said that. Linzi, I took what you said just like Yoga Fire…it was a purposeful effort that created India, however arbitrary the Brits decided things, I think. But I’ve also read quite a bit, where the notion of some country of Hindus existed for a long time, with boundaries similar to the India of today….it could have split up, as Portugal and Spain, Germany and parts of Poland, Austria and Hungary, but like many nation-states today, the boundaries, when receiving Independence were thought out…like many of the countries that formed in Europe. Many parts of Europe were conquered and in some ways colonized by former European or the Ottoman Empire…the present day boundaries of Europe required the active negotiation (often wars and oppression and nationalist movements, that included language or culture) by the people who occupy the countries. “

    PS, I am not disagreeing with you, but my whole thought process was addressing the idea of the “nation-state”. From the perspective of the “nation-state” the formation of India into a country IS arbitrary, as it is not based on cultural/linguistic lines (if it had been, we would have had each Indian state, if not more, as it’s own country. When I said arbitrary, I meant in terms of country as ‘nation-state’ NOT whether or not people planned things and made decisions)

    I also do not disagree on anything you are saying about Europe. I must not be expressing my thoughts very clearly so let me try to clarify.

    I am talking about what people in our era choose to see as the “ideal” country– and my argument that the ideal people choose to espouse is the “nation-state”– it is the mainstream accepted idea of what a country should be. This ideal is one where a country is more or less a culturally homogeneous group who speaks the same language. The most current of the reorganizations of countries in Europe tend to go along these lines. Take Yugoslavia for example– it has been broken up (or attempted to) based on linguistic/cultural-religious lines into a bunch of smaller countries. Another would be the former USSR. (Again, I am not saying it is 100% broken up this way, I am saying it was broken up with this ideology in mind, of course it would not be there 100% in the real world)

    Basically the whole ideology in the world today that a cultural/linguistic group should have it’s own ‘nation state’ has been the impetus for much modern movements, wars, etc.

    Even take a look at America– while a ton of different cultures and linguistic groups live here, there the whole concept of the ‘melting pot’ where everyone is supposed to learn English and assimilate to “American culture” (i.e. the one established by the European settlers). This concept is still quite supported– and is a prime example of peoples acceptance that a modern country needs to be a ‘nation-state’ to run well.

    The same ideology is behind India’s (since independence) emphasis on building this unifying culture/language throughout India– to kind of create an Indian ‘melting pot’ and hence make India (which is made up of 100s of languages and cultures) into a big ‘nation-state’. The fact that the various groups are still demanding their own recognized states is an indication that people aren’t buying into the ‘melting pot’ of India ideology– and I think that scares a lot of people, because if India as a whole does not ‘succeed’ in making itself into a ‘nation-state’, then people fear that without this strong sense of cultural and linguistic unity, a country will fall apart (since the ‘nation-state’ is accepted as the natural model for a country).

  50. ” the concept of “India” as a nation as we know it today didn’t really exist.

    The concept of India as a ‘nation’ or ‘civilization’ is very old and has resisted repeated invasions/colonizations, often by convincing/persuading the colonizers.

    It is the idea of India as a ‘state’ that is somewhat new.”

    I think everyone is forgetting that my whole entire set of comments is based on the ideology of the ‘nation state’. The various kingdoms which ruled India throughout time were before this current ideology– they did not base their rule on an ideology of on single cultural/lingustic group, but on the fact that they were in charge. 😉

    The idea of the “nation state” is much (almost typed mouch there, oops!) more tied into the democratic/republic ideology (ruling by acceptance), rather than monarchy (ruling by force).

    Also, if you look at maps of the changes in unified kingdoms in India through History, you’ll see something a lot more similar to the changes in unified kingdoms in Europe back in that time period as well- shifting borders and Kingdoms– some encompassing more or less area at different times. (some good maps: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India)

    You have to understand– my whole entire point was simply to examine this issue through the view of understanding the ‘nation state’. It’s just one perspective, and that’s all it’s meant to be. I just think it is an interesting lens through which to view this modern issue. bas.