Re: Looks like Telangana is a certainty

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:24 am

pravalika nanda wrote:dude, no one cares about hyderabad....I imagine pak must be smtg like that.

You could not be more wrong. If people from coastal Andhra did not care about Hyderabad, they would not be opposed to letting Telangana go its own way. They don't get any benefits from insisting on a samaikya Andhra Pradesh; in fact it is inconvenient having the capital farther away from them than it could otherwise be. The main reason there are protests in coastal Andhra against separation is the status of Hyderabad, where rich people from coastal Andhra have made large investments. In India, politicians make decisions that directly benefit their own real estate portfolios, so bifurcation would take the coastal politicians out of the loop on decisions that affect the value of their real estate portfolios in Hyderabad.

pravalika nanda wrote:anyhow, vichara karamaina visesham.

This I agree with.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:35 am

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:NizamE. Avvanni paatavi. Aa rOjullO arava vaalla influence takkuva (Nellore, Chittor, etc.). Potana time lO, Kaakateeyas spoke proper telugu. Tul-ur-mar came after that. Atu arava vaallu, itu Bahamani/Golkonda vaallu, Telugu ni khoonee chEsaaru. Ippudu, POtana bhaagavatam Warangal kurraallaki ardham kaadEmO.
meeku telangANalO asalu paristhitulu teliyaka adigO puli anTE idigO tOka annaTlu mATlADutunnaru. grAndhika bhAsha -- pOtanadi ayinA tikkanadi ayinA -- aTu varangallulO, iTu rAjamanDrilO "kurrakunkalaku" sasEmirA artham kAdu. adEdO I Adhunika yugam tecchi peTTina dusthhiti anukunTArEmO mIru -- alA kUDA kAdu. pOtana, tikkana pustakAlu rAsina samayamlO kUDa grAndhikAnikI vyAvahArikAnikI nakkaku nAgalOkAniki vunnanta tEDanE vunDEdi.

Vyaavahaarikam - kosta lo differences vunnaai kaanee konaseema vs. guntur ki Talangana vs kosta laanti bhedam ledu. Emainaa, nizame, naaku pedda telEdu Telangana bhaasha gurinchi. Vintoo vuntE Urdu, Marati kalisinatlu anipistundi.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:41 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: Interesting. However, I think the Muslim control over coastal areas was somewhat marginal. They also fostered cultural activities (Kuchipudi, for exampe).

Correct, but that is not a difference in degree of control. Rather, the Qutbshahis of Golconda were as a group more tolerant and encouraging of local culture and arts than the Mughals and their successors the Nizams. Many of the Qutbshahis spoke Telugu, and a couple of the kings wrote Telugu poetry, and maintained Telugu poets in the court at Golconda. It is said that Tanashah saw the dancers to whom he gave the Kuchipudi agraharam when he was traveling through that part of his kingdom. That doesn't indicate marginal control of the region.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: As in the case of Kosta, Tamil and Kannada areas that were under Muslim rule probably maintained their language and culture intact. Telangana? I still think that its original Telugu is corrupted by interventions.

I have spent time on both sides, and in my experience, there is a lot more in common in terms of culture and customs than is different. In terms of language, Telangana people use more Urdu words than the people from the coast, but coastal Andhra people use more Sanskrit words than the people of Telangana. There was a long thread here on Telangana Telugu, where Rashmun was arguing that Telangana Telugu is closer to Urdu than it is to "standard" Telugu. He did some extensive online research and posted a few articles. I demonstrated on that thread, using the very articles that he cited, that Telangana Telugu is essentially a lot closer to other Telugu dialects, than Dakhni Urdu is to northindian Urdu. There are references that I highlighted in that thread to the fact that Dakhni Urdu actually borrowed a lot more from Telugu, than Telangana Telugu did from Urdu. This thread was from before your joined this site, so read it if you are interested: https://such.forumotion.com/t5730-telangana-telugu-an-offshoot-of-dakhni

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: If you read Potana, it is different from modern Telangana bhasha.

If you read Srinathudu, it is different from the modern coastal Andhra bhasha. That's the point I was making about grAndhikam vs. vyAvahArikam.

by goodcitizn Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:53 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:andani drAksha paLLu pullana.
Does this translate to "the grass is greener on that side"?

Which faction wants the division more, the telangana or the rayalseema?

How will the central government funding be apportioned ... based on population strength, percentage of tax revenue contributed or what?

People of all three regions don't want the division. Only the politicians of Telangana want it (mainly for the revenue that Hyderabad generates). If Hyderabad is made a UT, these politicians will destroy 1000 more vehicles and make 1000 more "students" commit suicide.

If you remove Hyderabad from the revenue picture, Coastal AP generates more revenue compared to Telangana and Seema. Population wise also, the coastal area has more people. But Telangana politicians cry and ask for more because they have been keeping it backward (just like what the Nizam had done in the past). In reality, Northern coastal AP, Rayalaseema are also backward. Knowing the CONbehavior of MT et al., they will apportion the funds according to whichever formula gives them most MPs. Since they already figured that coastal AP (and Seema) will be voting for corrupt sAmrat Jagan, I think, MT and her cronies will favor giving more money to Telangana (for the politicians to gobble it up and to go to Delhi with money bags once a week).

If nobody except the politicians want the division, I find it hard to believe that this issue has been going on for years with the disapproval of those who elect them.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:56 am

The chinese believe that all areas ruled by them anytime in the past belongs to them.

By the same token Telengana, Andhra, rayalaseema, karnataka, maharashtra and Keral all belong to Tamil Nadu.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:57 am

goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:andani drAksha paLLu pullana.
Does this translate to "the grass is greener on that side"?

Which faction wants the division more, the telangana or the rayalseema?

Like someone else said, it means "sour grapes." The people of Telangana want division. The people of coastal Andhra do not want division. The people of Rayalaseema may be caught in the middle.

goodcitizn wrote:How will the central government funding be apportioned ... based on population strength, percentage of tax revenue contributed or what?

This is a surprisingly complex question. I don't have all the answers, but will attempt to answer it. The bulk of central funding comes in two ways: one is budgetary support and the other is plan support. Think of the former as covering operating expenses (or income statement line items), and the latter as covering capital expenditures (or balance sheet line items). For budgetary support, the formula is population-based with some tweaks (so really small states get a little more), but it will be straightforward to apply after bifurcation. For plan support, there is considerable political freedom -- and the union government gets to play favorites with the several states. This is the piece that regional politicians heavily lobby New Delhi for. In addition, there are special/emergency funds (which are all operating expense type of funds) which are also more discretionary. And on top of that, there are small amounts that are unaffected -- e.g. the amounts that each MP gets to spend in his constituency on his/her pet projects.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:57 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The chinese believe that all areas ruled by them anytime in the past belongs to them.

By the same token Telengana, Andhra, rayalaseema, karnataka, maharashtra and Keral all belong to Tamil Nadu.

And all of Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:05 am

goodcitizn wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
People of all three regions don't want the division. Only the politicians of Telangana want it (mainly for the revenue that Hyderabad generates).
If nobody except the politicians want the division, I find it hard to believe that this issue has been going on for years with the disapproval of those who elect them.

You are right. Congress is going ahead with bifurcation because it believes that the people of Telangana will not vote for them if they choose to not bifurcate the state. The people of Telangana want bifurcation because they perceive themselves as not getting a fair shake in a united state. Some of their grievances I think are genuine. Because those grievances are genuine, they never quite disappear, and from time to time, opportunistic politicians appear who seek to divide the state. For many years now, Andhra Pradesh has sorely lacked a leader with enough stature and charisma to bring all Telugu people together, address those genuine grievances, and fix the underlying problems. That is why this problem has taken center-stage. For his numerous faults, there was no active movement for bifurcation during the rule of NTR -- because he could unite Telugu people across all regions. He was a horrible CM who deserved to be kicked out, but once he was gone from the scene, the movement came back to life.

by goodcitizn Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:19 am

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:andani drAksha paLLu pullana.
Does this translate to "the grass is greener on that side"?

Which faction wants the division more, the telangana or the rayalseema?
Like someone else said, it means "sour grapes." The people of Telangana want division. The people of coastal Andhra do not want division. The people of Rayalaseema may be caught in the middle.

goodcitizn wrote:How will the central government funding be apportioned ... based on population strength, percentage of tax revenue contributed or what?
This is a surprisingly complex question. I don't have all the answers, but will attempt to answer it. The bulk of central funding comes in two ways: one is budgetary support and the other is plan support. Think of the former as covering operating expenses (or income statement line items), and the latter as covering capital expenditures (or balance sheet line items). For budgetary support, the formula is population-based with some tweaks (so really small states get a little more), but it will be straightforward to apply after bifurcation. For plan support, there is considerable political freedom -- and the union government gets to play favorites with the several states. This is the piece that regional politicians heavily lobby New Delhi for. In addition, there are special/emergency funds (which are all operating expense type of funds) which are also more discretionary. And on top of that, there are small amounts that are unaffected -- e.g. the amounts that each MP gets to spend in his constituency on his/her pet projects.

This was helpful. Clarifies quite a few questions I had. Lobbying New Delhi to receive political and funding favors is so partisan that it is shameful that the Indian constitution allows it. It is equally shameful that the south indian states have to almost beg the Center to receive funding on major issues such as power and transportation when they contribute significantly more as a percentage in tax revenue to the Center. Thankfully the private sector is quite strong and flourishing in the south.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:26 am

There is a good chance that talk of a southern TN will show up sometime in the near future. MK's death and Alagiri/Stalin fight could be that catalyst.

same thing in Karnataka and maharashtra - remember Vidharba and Tirupude?

by goodcitizn Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:33 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:There is a good chance that talk of a southern TN will show up sometime in the near future. MK's death and Alagiri/Stalin fight could be that catalyst.

same thing in Karnataka and maharashtra - remember Vidharba and Tirupude?

You are giving too much importance to these two. Do you seriously think that they could polarize Tamilians into a northern southern division?

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:24 am

Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:Why are Hindians in New delhi deciding the matter instead of Telugus? Are you Telugus take offense?

No. Telugus like to follow democratic process unlike you know who.
What is democratic about Sonia Gandhi deciding whether Telugu people should have one state or two? Who elected her to make that decision?

I think it's just a fallacy. She alone is not making the decision and most importantly, none of the leaders from other parties seem to have any major objections with current process. If she indeed is making an autocratic decision then it is a shame that they (non-congress leaders) are not raising their voices; they are doing a disservice to the people elected them. SriKrishna committee, an autonomous entity, was commissioned by Govt. of India and their report was made public. Unless you suggest statewide referendum is the only way to decide on bifurcation I consider the current process how inept & laborious it may have been is democratic in nature.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:31 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:Why are Hindians in New delhi deciding the matter instead of Telugus? Are you Telugus take offense?

No. Telugus like to follow democratic process unlike you know who.

Do you understand democracy? It is peoplke deciding their future. Here Telugu people. Why arte Hindians deciding your future? You could as well stayed under British decide it for you.

I guess I don't understand democracy. BTW, how is that separate Tamil country dream coming along with your democratic ways! Which of these two you think will come to fruition first, Telangana State or TN country?

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:45 am

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
People of all three regions don't want the division. Only the politicians of Telangana want it (mainly for the revenue that Hyderabad generates).
If nobody except the politicians want the division, I find it hard to believe that this issue has been going on for years with the disapproval of those who elect them.
You are right. Congress is going ahead with bifurcation because it believes that the people of Telangana will not vote for them if they choose to not bifurcate the state. The people of Telangana want bifurcation because they perceive themselves as not getting a fair shake in a united state. Some of their grievances I think are genuine. Because those grievances are genuine, they never quite disappear, and from time to time, opportunistic politicians appear who seek to divide the state. For many years now, Andhra Pradesh has sorely lacked a leader with enough stature and charisma to bring all Telugu people together, address those genuine grievances, and fix the underlying problems. That is why this problem has taken center-stage. For his numerous faults, there was no active movement for bifurcation during the rule of NTR -- because he could unite Telugu people across all regions. He was a horrible CM who deserved to be kicked out, but once he was gone from the scene, the movement came back to life.

Let's set the record straight here. The last major agitation for a separate state, Jai Andhra movement, took place in 1973, that was a decade prior to NTR came to power. If you're going to give credit to NTR for uniting Telugus then you should blame the very same TDP (or CBN) for its/his inability to continue that tradition, remember KCR was a TDP MLA for a long time prior to forming TRS.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:43 am

Idefix: for his numerous faults, there was no active movement for bifurcation during the rule of NTR -- because he could unite Telugu people across all regions. He was a horrible CM who deserved to be kicked out, but once he was gone from the scene, the movement came back to life.[/quote]

What you said is more true of ysr than ntr.
Ysr contained t movement while the movement is very active in 2004 to 2010 (in 1980s t movement was dormant with main protaganist Channa reddy being discredited as a corrupt and inept cm along with other Congress cms). In terms of being kicked out, who deserves that better than ysr.
jagan., ysr's son, gets the residual benefit of ysr's telangana blocking effort.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:56 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:Why are Hindians in New delhi deciding the matter instead of Telugus? Are you Telugus take offense?

No. Telugus like to follow democratic process unlike you know who.
What is democratic about Sonia Gandhi deciding whether Telugu people should have one state or two? Who elected her to make that decision?

I think it's just a fallacy. She alone is not making the decision and most importantly, none of the leaders from other parties seem to have any major objections with current process. If she indeed is making an autocratic decision then it is a shame that they (non-congress leaders) are not raising their voices; they are doing a disservice to the people elected them. SriKrishna committee, an autonomous entity, was commissioned by Govt. of India and their report was made public. Unless you suggest statewide referendum is the only way to decide on bifurcation I consider the current process how inept & laborious it may have been is democratic in nature.

Cd,
You are confusing Indian democracy with Congress autocracy. However feeble it is, Indian democracy has opportunity to allow telangana and andhra people's voices being heard. That credit does not belong to Sonia. That exists despite Sonia and Congress.
Congress which is in power and has the ability to make decision has no internal democracy . It has anarchy where they can project any number of views while professing loyalty to Sonia. Every thing is left at the door step of Sonia instead of convincing people's opinion. Sonia's decision is based on securing enough seats for rahul to get pm post. That is nepotism, dynastic politics and self aggrandizing politics.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:00 am

Idéfix wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:dude, no one cares about hyderabad....I imagine pak must be smtg like that.
You could not be more wrong. If people from coastal Andhra did not care about Hyderabad, they would not be opposed to letting Telangana go its own way. They don't get any benefits from insisting on a samaikya Andhra Pradesh; in fact it is inconvenient having the capital farther away from them than it could otherwise be. The main reason there are protests in coastal Andhra against separation is the status of Hyderabad, where rich people from coastal Andhra have made large investments. In India, politicians make decisions that directly benefit their own real estate portfolios, so bifurcation would take the coastal politicians out of the loop on decisions that affect the value of their real estate portfolios in Hyderabad.

pravalika nanda wrote:anyhow, vichara karamaina visesham.
This I agree with.

It is but natural for those who invested in Hyderabad to ensure that their investments don't suffer. Looks like you ignored the most important aspect. Telangana politicians are mainly after the revenue of Hyderabad and are being very selfish. Shouldn't people of Hyderabad have a say in this?

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:00 am

Cd,
I concede one thing. What started in Indira time now seeped into every major national and local party. Almost all parties are dynastic except bjp which is beholden to not so behind curtains rss.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:16 am

Speaking of hyd investments and revenue, let me correct some false impressions.
Investments in hyd were made by andhra and seema people from 1950s. Current politicos including jagan and lagadapati own substantial property but in the great scheme of things they own less than 5% of andhra and seema owned property. While large property owners capture leadership, that fact cannot negate the genuine concerns of large number of people for their safety and property rights in their own state.

Revenue sharing is a losing proposition to andhra as geography prefers t. Sooner or later t gets hyd. Andhra can only ask for a share for 25 years.

Water is the biggest and most explosive problem. A good 100 year agreement would help andhra. Such an agreement is not likely to be drawn. Even if one is drawn, what is the possibility of it being neglected by t as it had no negative consequences.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:28 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Which of these two you think will come to fruition first, Telangana State or TN country?

You are comparing killing ants with lion hunt. Of course lion hunt will take longer.

by Hellsangel Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:05 am

Trollus Fishyeyeus, the tigers are now lions? The tigers are an endangered species.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:18 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:She alone is not making the decision and most importantly, none of the leaders from other parties seem to have any major objections with current process. If she indeed is making an autocratic decision then it is a shame that they (non-congress leaders) are not raising their voices; they are doing a disservice to the people elected them. SriKrishna committee, an autonomous entity, was commissioned by Govt. of India and their report was made public. Unless you suggest statewide referendum is the only way to decide on bifurcation I consider the current process how inept & laborious it may have been is democratic in nature.

I was referring to the pointed statements made by Congress leaders saying High Command will make the decision. Didn't the CLP (or was it the Assembly) pass a motion authorizing her to do this?

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:20 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Let's set the record straight here. The last major agitation for a separate state, Jai Andhra movement, took place in 1973, that was a decade prior to NTR came to power. If you're going to give credit to NTR for uniting Telugus then you should blame the very same TDP (or CBN) for its/his inability to continue that tradition, remember KCR was a TDP MLA for a long time prior to forming TRS.

Yes, I do blame CBN for not dealing with the Telangana threat when he could have. The right approach would have been to get together with YSR and come up with a statesman-like solution, instead of focusing on the politics of the next election.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:22 pm

truthbetold wrote:What you said is more true of ysr than ntr.
Ysr contained t movement while the movement is very active in 2004 to 2010 (in 1980s t movement was dormant with main protaganist Channa reddy being discredited as a corrupt and inept cm along with other Congress cms). In terms of being kicked out, who deserves that better than ysr.
jagan., ysr's son, gets the residual benefit of ysr's telangana blocking effort.

YSR contained the movement, but I think he also did not deal with the underlying issues. If he had stood fast by the idea of a united AP and insisted CBN come out in support, we might have been a different outcome. I see the current situation as the failure of leadership on the part of that generation of Telugu leaders.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:34 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It is but natural for those who invested in Hyderabad to ensure that their investments don't suffer.

I don't see a natural right for Andhra politicians to dictate public policy in Hyderabad in order to drive up the value of their investments. CBN benefited from locating his Hitec city where he owned a lot of land, YSR did similar things all over. I don't see why it is "but natural" for them to have that ability. As for the regular folks of coastal Andhra who own land in Hyderabad, I don't see how their investments will suffer if Hyderabad is part of Telangana. I understand that their investments -- and those of Telangana people like me -- will suffer if there is a bifurcation. But if bifurcation is a fait accompli, how does Hyderabad being part of Telangana reduce the value of lands owned by Andhra folks more than those owned by Telangana folks? It's not like Telangana state can pass a law that reduces the value of Andhra-owned land without affecting Telangana-owned land!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like you ignored the most important aspect. Telangana politicians are mainly after the revenue of Hyderabad and are being very selfish. Shouldn't people of Hyderabad have a say in this?

I wouldn't blame just Telangana politicians; Andhra politicians are also being very selfish. It makes no sense to create a new state with a hole in the middle. My preference is to not bifurcate the state, but if bifurcation happens, Hyderabad has to be part of the new state for its viability. Hyderabad was built by a rapacious Nizam who looted the countryside and the only investments he made were in the city he lived in. I estimated in another thread that the Nizam's looted more than 90 years' worth of per-capita income of his entire subject population in Telangana. Taking away Hyderabad, with its revenues, from Telangana would be tantamount to looting Telangana again.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:40 pm

truthbetold wrote:Speaking of hyd investments and revenue, let me correct some false impressions.
Investments in hyd were made by andhra and seema people from 1950s. Current politicos including jagan and lagadapati own substantial property but in the great scheme of things they own less than 5% of andhra and seema owned property. While large property owners capture leadership, that fact cannot negate the genuine concerns of large number of people for their safety and property rights in their own state.

I agree -- most of the land is owned not by the political leaders. So I don't see why political control over Hyderabad is important for coastal Andhra. Just like property rights of Telugus are protected in Bangalore and Mumbai, they will be protected in Hyderabad. It is in Telangana politicians' own interests to protect those rights -- if they drive out Andhra businessmen and professional classes, the goose that lays golden eggs for them will die immediately.

truthbetold wrote:Revenue sharing is a losing proposition to andhra as geography prefers t. Sooner or later t gets hyd. Andhra can only ask for a share for 25 years.

Yes, interim revenue sharing should help smooth the transition for Andhra. The center should also provide funds for the construction of the new capital.

truthbetold wrote:Water is the biggest and most explosive problem. A good 100 year agreement would help andhra. Such an agreement is not likely to be drawn. Even if one is drawn, what is the possibility of it being neglected by t as it had no negative consequences.

Water is the thing I am most worried about. At the root of most Telangana resentments is how water from the Krishna and Godavari have not benefited Telangana farmers much. So even if Telangana leaders compromise now and sign an agreement, they are likely to defy the center in future later like Karnataka has done. It will certainly test the Indian system.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:01 pm

truthbetold wrote:
Cd,
You are confusing Indian democracy with Congress autocracy. However feeble it is, Indian democracy has opportunity to allow telangana and andhra people's voices being heard. That credit does not belong to Sonia. That exists despite Sonia and Congress.
Congress which is in power and has the ability to make decision has no internal democracy . It has anarchy where they can project any number of views while professing loyalty to Sonia. Every thing is left at the door step of Sonia instead of convincing people's opinion. Sonia's decision is based on securing enough seats for rahul to get pm post. That is nepotism, dynastic politics and self aggrandizing politics.

Idefix wrote:
I was referring to the pointed statements made by Congress leaders saying High Command will make the decision. Didn't the CLP (or was it the Assembly) pass a motion authorizing her to do this?

There is a precedent set by BJP in '00, right? How did they do it, was Advani representing those states or belongs to any of those 3 states? Didn't Nitesh Kumar recently say that Bihar bifurcation was premature.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:23 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It is but natural for those who invested in Hyderabad to ensure that their investments don't suffer.
I don't see a natural right for Andhra politicians to dictate public policy in Hyderabad in order to drive up the value of their investments. CBN benefited from locating his Hitec city where he owned a lot of land, YSR did similar things all over. I don't see why it is "but natural" for them to have that ability. As for the regular folks of coastal Andhra who own land in Hyderabad, I don't see how their investments will suffer if Hyderabad is part of Telangana. I understand that their investments -- and those of Telangana people like me -- will suffer if there is a bifurcation. But if bifurcation is a fait accompli, how does Hyderabad being part of Telangana reduce the value of lands owned by Andhra folks more than those owned by Telangana folks? It's not like Telangana state can pass a law that reduces the value of Andhra-owned land without affecting Telangana-owned land!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like you ignored the most important aspect. Telangana politicians are mainly after the revenue of Hyderabad and are being very selfish. Shouldn't people of Hyderabad have a say in this?
I wouldn't blame just Telangana politicians; Andhra politicians are also being very selfish. It makes no sense to create a new state with a hole in the middle. My preference is to not bifurcate the state, but if bifurcation happens, Hyderabad has to be part of the new state for its viability. Hyderabad was built by a rapacious Nizam who looted the countryside and the only investments he made were in the city he lived in. I estimated in another thread that the Nizam's looted more than 90 years' worth of per-capita income of his entire subject population in Telangana. Taking away Hyderabad, with its revenues, from Telangana would be tantamount to looting Telangana again.

I hope Telangana people will benefit from the split. The T politicians were like Nizam - they used Telangana for building personal wealth. Andhra politicians? What have they done for coastal AP all these years? I hope they will concentrate on building prosperity for Kosta. Telangana owned land? What has not been discussed here is the money that land owners from Rangareddi dist minted because of the real estate boom. Most of that money was made by locals. I also hope that, while splitting the state, none of the politicians will hurt Hyderabad and Rayalaseema.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:32 pm

Non of the other media outlets are picking up on the Hindu news item. Rayala t may be a test balloon by Congress leadership.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:37 pm

Cd,
Ysr and cbn. Working together to keep the state would not have worked. T sentiment trumps both of them and their parties.
only way to stall t is by not saying no. They both tried. Inevitable split will happen in a torturously slow and inefficient way.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:31 pm

truthbetold wrote:

What you said is more true of ysr than ntr.
Ysr contained t movement while the movement is very active in 2004 to 2010 (in 1980s t movement was dormant with main protaganist Channa reddy being discredited as a corrupt and inept cm along with other Congress cms). In terms of being kicked out, who deserves that better than ysr.
jagan., ysr's son, gets the residual benefit of ysr's telangana blocking effort.

What do you mean! he is dead and was elected for the 2nd term. Are you saying defeating Jagan amounts to kicking YSR out.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:16 pm

Idéfix wrote:
I don't see a natural right for Andhra politicians to dictate public policy in Hyderabad in order to drive up the value of their investments. CBN benefited from locating his Hitec city where he owned a lot of land, YSR did similar things all over. I don't see why it is "but natural" for them to have that ability.

Come on now, don't sound like those idiots KCR, Kodandram and Professor JayaShankar, who in particular brainwashed this generation students with his outdated philosophies. You're much more intelligent and level headed than them. First of all both CBN & YSR hail from Rayalaseema not sure if that makes them Andhra politicians, and [as CMs] they were representing the whole state not just one region. Many politicians from Telangana region benefited from the real estate boom as well (manufactured or not), Devender Goud is one such example.

Idéfix wrote:
As for the regular folks of coastal Andhra who own land in Hyderabad, I don't see how their investments will suffer if Hyderabad is part of Telangana. I understand that their investments -- and those of Telangana people like me -- will suffer if there is a bifurcation. But if bifurcation is a fait accompli, how does Hyderabad being part of Telangana reduce the value of lands owned by Andhra folks more than those owned by Telangana folks? It's not like Telangana state can pass a law that reduces the value of Andhra-owned land without affecting Telangana-owned land!

I guess politicians from other regions are worried that they won't have that much of leeway to operate in a neighboring state. Can T state enact land laws similar to HP and other NE states which prevent outsiders from acquiring land (even then that shouldn't impact existing owners) I don't see how such a law would be prudent to a newly formed state in this day and age, most likely would have a negative impact in terms of revenue generation.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:58 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Water is the thing I am most worried about. At the root of most Telangana resentments is how water from the Krishna and Godavari have not benefited Telangana farmers much. So even if Telangana leaders compromise now and sign an agreement, they are likely to defy the center in future later like Karnataka has done. It will certainly test the Indian system.

Seriously though how many projects were initiated and completed since the creation of Andhra Pradesh state. OTOH, all of the industrial development with the exception of Vizag Steel Plant occurred in or around Hyderabad.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:03 pm

>> laws similar to HP and other NE states which prevent outsiders from acquiring land

Give reference to that law if it true. We want to immediayely pass a law in my homeland

by Hellsangel Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:06 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> laws similar to HP and other NE states which prevent outsiders from acquiring land

Give reference to that law if it true. We want to immediayely pass a law in my homeland

Trollus Fishyeyeus, who is we?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:06 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> laws similar to HP and other NE states which prevent outsiders from acquiring land

Give reference to that law if it true. We want to immediayely pass a law in my homeland

Thank you...Thank you...

thank u, thank u thank u....

Should I arrange for the day of celebration? when will it be convenient to you?

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:35 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:

What you said is more true of ysr than ntr.
Ysr contained t movement while the movement is very active in 2004 to 2010 (in 1980s t movement was dormant with main protaganist Channa reddy being discredited as a corrupt and inept cm along with other Congress cms). In terms of being kicked out, who deserves that better than ysr.
jagan., ysr's son, gets the residual benefit of ysr's telangana blocking effort.

What do you mean! he is dead and was elected for the 2nd term. Are you saying defeating Jagan amounts to kicking YSR out.

Cd,
Ntr was dead too. What I wrote about ysr was about him only.
with all his flaws, ysr was a far betterand accomplished politician to be compared or confused with neophyte jagan.

by yogi Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:07 am

My two cents on telangana issue.

The movement is 1st of its kind where the people living in the same geographical area as that of the well developed capital are asking for a separate state.
I hear two reasons for the separation. 1) Economic backwardness 2) Strong will of people of telangana to rule themselves. While the 1st reason is just a fallacy propagated by the politicians, (parts of seema and uttara andhra are way backward vis-a-vis telangana) one need to agree with the people's opinion and that is what democracy stands for.
But mere forming a state by drawing a border line doesn't change anything as long as the fundamental realities doesn't change and for this to happen the mindset of politicians need to be changed which i don't see happening in the near future.
Telangana state will be formed for sure and what we don't want is bad blood between people of two regions. Also a balance need to be struck wherein the people of either regions shouldn't feel they are losing out something or being cheated.

by Idéfix Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:56 pm

yogi wrote:But mere forming a state by drawing a border line doesn't change anything as long as the fundamental realities doesn't change and for this to happen the mindset of politicians need to be changed which i don't see happening in the near future.
Telangana state will be formed for sure and what we don't want is bad blood between people of two regions. Also a balance need to be struck wherein the people of either regions shouldn't feel they are losing out something or being cheated.

Well said. If bifurcation happens, it needs to happen in a manner that does not affect the day to day lives of Andhra people living in Telangana and vice versa. Little things go a long way in such matters: we learned in school about the geography, history, and culture of the entire state. I hope that doesn't change with bifurcation; the stories of Rudramadevi, Potana, Palanati yuddham, and Veeresalingam ought to be taught to all Telugu kids. Once the dust settles, I hope the current tensions reduce and better sense prevails.

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:12 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
I don't see a natural right for Andhra politicians to dictate public policy in Hyderabad in order to drive up the value of their investments. CBN benefited from locating his Hitec city where he owned a lot of land, YSR did similar things all over. I don't see why it is "but natural" for them to have that ability.

Come on now, don't sound like those idiots KCR, Kodandram and Professor JayaShankar, who in particular brainwashed this generation students with his outdated philosophies. You're much more intelligent and level headed than them. First of all both CBN & YSR hail from Rayalaseema not sure if that makes them Andhra politicians, and [as CMs] they were representing the whole state not just one region. Many politicians from Telangana region benefited from the real estate boom as well (manufactured or not), Devender Goud is one such example.

Yes, Telangana politicians certainly benefited from the boom, and so did many other Telangana people who inherited agricultural lands on the outskirts of Hyderabad. My point is different. Let me try another way to make it.

If you are not a politician and you own property in Hyderabad, you don't have active control over property values. If the government decides to develop the area where you own land, you benefit greatly; if not, your investment limps along. Most property owners fall in this bucket. Whether you are from Telangana or coastal Andhra, you cannot hope to influence policy decisions made by government agencies. Like you said (see below), I don't think a new state will pass any legal restrictions on the property rights of people from other states of India. So the status of Hyderabad has little to no direct impact on your property.

If you are a politician or a really rich person who can buy political influence, then things are different. In a united AP, you can hope to influence policy decisions in your favor. In a divided Telangana that includes Hyderabad, Kosta and Rayalaseema politicians won't have that kind of influence in Hyderabad any more. So for them, the status of Hyderabad is really critical.

This is why I think politicians from coastal Andhra (and Rayalaseema) are opposed to bifurcation. And that is why they insist that if bifurcation happens, Hyderabad should not be part of it. It will be a lot easier for those politicians to retain influence if Hyderabad is a union territory, because people from their regions form a substantial portion of the population.

confuzzled dude wrote:I guess politicians from other regions are worried that they won't have that much of leeway to operate in a neighboring state. Can T state enact land laws similar to HP and other NE states which prevent outsiders from acquiring land (even then that shouldn't impact existing owners) I don't see how such a law would be prudent to a newly formed state in this day and age, most likely would have a negative impact in terms of revenue generation.

I am certainly opposed to any restrictions on out-of-state land ownership. That would seriously hinder investment in the state, reduce property values, and hinder job creation. I don't see any such law being enacted in Telangana.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:17 am

Idéfix wrote: I hope that doesn't change with bifurcation; the stories of Rudramadevi, Potana, Palanati yuddham, and Veeresalingam ought to be taught to all Telugu kids. Once the dust settles, I hope the current tensions reduce and better sense prevails.

No they won't. Do they study about Tamil Nadu in Andhra schools (one before 1954), Jharkhandis read about Bihar or Uttarachal about UP ?

Expect the same. Telengana will go their own way and establish its own identity, and Andhra and telengana will be enemies - thanks to Krishna and Godavari.

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:28 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Water is the thing I am most worried about. At the root of most Telangana resentments is how water from the Krishna and Godavari have not benefited Telangana farmers much. So even if Telangana leaders compromise now and sign an agreement, they are likely to defy the center in future later like Karnataka has done. It will certainly test the Indian system.

Seriously though how many projects were initiated and completed since the creation of Andhra Pradesh state. OTOH, all of the industrial development with the exception of Vizag Steel Plant occurred in or around Hyderabad.

Nagarjuna Sagar and Srisailam are two big projects that cause resentment among farmers in my district. Some of them are still waiting for water from Srisailam Left Bank Canal, which was originally supposed to be completed in the 1960s. And Nagarjuna Sagar left bank canal irrigates less than a third of the area that the right bank canal irrigates, and people complain that it does so a lot less reliably than the right bank canal. I vaguely recall that TBT posted data a few years ago showing that in terms of approvals and spending, Telangana has actually gotten its fair share of irrigation spending, but the farmers don't see the results. That is likely because Telangana politicians and contractors siphoned off more of the funds than those on the other bank of the river. But the same politicians can still turn around and incite the farmers against Kosta people and exploit the anger for more political gain.

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:33 am

Another article from The Hindu:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/telangana-talk-raises-anxiety-levels-in-industry/article4938720.ece

The central government's dysfunctional process for deciding on this costs the state's economy.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:42 am

Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Water is the thing I am most worried about. At the root of most Telangana resentments is how water from the Krishna and Godavari have not benefited Telangana farmers much. So even if Telangana leaders compromise now and sign an agreement, they are likely to defy the center in future later like Karnataka has done. It will certainly test the Indian system.

Seriously though how many projects were initiated and completed since the creation of Andhra Pradesh state. OTOH, all of the industrial development with the exception of Vizag Steel Plant occurred in or around Hyderabad.
Nagarjuna Sagar and Srisailam are two big projects that cause resentment among farmers in my district. Some of them are still waiting for water from Srisailam Left Bank Canal, which was originally supposed to be completed in the 1960s. And Nagarjuna Sagar left bank canal irrigates less than a third of the area that the right bank canal irrigates, and people complain that it does so a lot less reliably than the right bank canal. I vaguely recall that TBT posted data a few years ago showing that in terms of approvals and spending, Telangana has actually gotten its fair share of irrigation spending, but the farmers don't see the results. That is likely because Telangana politicians and contractors siphoned off more of the funds than those on the other bank of the river. But the same politicians can still turn around and incite the farmers against Kosta people and exploit the anger for more political gain.

I know a little bit on the left and the right canals (don't ask me how I know). On both sides, they made money but you are right, on the left canals, much more was gobbled up! Even on Nagarjunasagar dam, a lot of money was made. Don't presume that the money on the left canal was taken by Nalgonda guys alone. Andhra guys were also involved. On the right canal, Some of these guys bought lands in Sattenapalli, etc., and became instant crorepatis (like Jagan).

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:55 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Water is the thing I am most worried about. At the root of most Telangana resentments is how water from the Krishna and Godavari have not benefited Telangana farmers much. So even if Telangana leaders compromise now and sign an agreement, they are likely to defy the center in future later like Karnataka has done. It will certainly test the Indian system.

Seriously though how many projects were initiated and completed since the creation of Andhra Pradesh state. OTOH, all of the industrial development with the exception of Vizag Steel Plant occurred in or around Hyderabad.
Nagarjuna Sagar and Srisailam are two big projects that cause resentment among farmers in my district. Some of them are still waiting for water from Srisailam Left Bank Canal, which was originally supposed to be completed in the 1960s. And Nagarjuna Sagar left bank canal irrigates less than a third of the area that the right bank canal irrigates, and people complain that it does so a lot less reliably than the right bank canal. I vaguely recall that TBT posted data a few years ago showing that in terms of approvals and spending, Telangana has actually gotten its fair share of irrigation spending, but the farmers don't see the results. That is likely because Telangana politicians and contractors siphoned off more of the funds than those on the other bank of the river. But the same politicians can still turn around and incite the farmers against Kosta people and exploit the anger for more political gain.

I know a little bit on the left and the right canals (don't ask me how I know). On both sides, they made money but you are right, on the left canals, much more was gobbled up! Even on Nagarjunasagar dam, a lot of money was made. Don't presume that the money on the left canal was taken by Nalgonda guys alone. Andhra guys were also involved. On the right canal, Some of these guys bought lands in Sattenapalli, etc., and became instant crorepatis (like Jagan).

Interesting... I didn't know that! I did hear stories of irregularities in building the Nagarjuna Sagar Dam -- the guy who made the money went on to run TTD if I remember right.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:19 am

Idéfix wrote:
I am certainly opposed to any restrictions on out-of-state land ownership. That would seriously hinder investment in the state, reduce property values, and hinder job creation. I don't see any such law being enacted in Telangana.

The fact that some of these guys are talking about reviving Mulki rules is a clear example of their vision & forward thinking. For crying out loud, this 2013, majority of the jobs are being created in private sector, by multinational companies, do you want them to stay in your state or not.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:44 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
I am certainly opposed to any restrictions on out-of-state land ownership. That would seriously hinder investment in the state, reduce property values, and hinder job creation. I don't see any such law being enacted in Telangana.

The fact that some of these guys are talking about reviving Mulki rules is a clear example of their vision & forward thinking. For crying out loud, this 2013, majority of the jobs are being created in private sector, by multinational companies, do you want them to stay in your state or not.

Going by what KCR's son and daughter are already doing, MNCs will be allowed to run their operations as long as they pay the "fee". If Andhra guys still want to invest in Hyderabad (I don't think they will, if the state splits), the same system of "fees" will apply. Slap-gate Jagannadham, CM-hopeful Vivekananda (KCR promised CM-ship for a dalit), Hanumantha Rao, etc., will look for scraps. While you have similar guys in Kosta as well, I see a lot more development (and diversification because of the fear with the water-sharing issue) happening in the new coastal state. Kosta guys may even start wondering how they have gone along with the unhealthy matrimony with Telangana or invested in Hyderabad this long.

by yogi Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:07 pm

Idéfix wrote:
yogi wrote:But mere forming a state by drawing a border line doesn't change anything as long as the fundamental realities doesn't change and for this to happen the mindset of politicians need to be changed which i don't see happening in the near future.
Telangana state will be formed for sure and what we don't want is bad blood between people of two regions. Also a balance need to be struck wherein the people of either regions shouldn't feel they are losing out something or being cheated.
Well said. If bifurcation happens, it needs to happen in a manner that does not affect the day to day lives of Andhra people living in Telangana and vice versa. Little things go a long way in such matters: we learned in school about the geography, history, and culture of the entire state. I hope that doesn't change with bifurcation; the stories of Rudramadevi, Potana, Palanati yuddham, and Veeresalingam ought to be taught to all Telugu kids. Once the dust settles, I hope the current tensions reduce and better sense prevails.

Yeah, i really hope they don't meddle with history and culture of what is being taught now. They can add about Komaram Bheem, Konda Laxman Bapuji,et.al but that shouldn't stop them from teaching about personalities hailing from andhra.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:17 pm

Idéfix wrote:
yogi wrote:But mere forming a state by drawing a border line doesn't change anything as long as the fundamental realities doesn't change and for this to happen the mindset of politicians need to be changed which i don't see happening in the near future.
Telangana state will be formed for sure and what we don't want is bad blood between people of two regions. Also a balance need to be struck wherein the people of either regions shouldn't feel they are losing out something or being cheated.
Well said. If bifurcation happens, it needs to happen in a manner that does not affect the day to day lives of Andhra people living in Telangana and vice versa. Little things go a long way in such matters: we learned in school about the geography, history, and culture of the entire state. I hope that doesn't change with bifurcation; the stories of Rudramadevi, Potana, Palanati yuddham, and Veeresalingam ought to be taught to all Telugu kids. Once the dust settles, I hope the current tensions reduce and better sense prevails.

are you just a blue skies optimist and genuinely believe in what you hope for? I cant decide...everytime I think I understand, you say something else to confuse me.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:21 pm

yogi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
yogi wrote:But mere forming a state by drawing a border line doesn't change anything as long as the fundamental realities doesn't change and for this to happen the mindset of politicians need to be changed which i don't see happening in the near future.
Telangana state will be formed for sure and what we don't want is bad blood between people of two regions. Also a balance need to be struck wherein the people of either regions shouldn't feel they are losing out something or being cheated.
Well said. If bifurcation happens, it needs to happen in a manner that does not affect the day to day lives of Andhra people living in Telangana and vice versa. Little things go a long way in such matters: we learned in school about the geography, history, and culture of the entire state. I hope that doesn't change with bifurcation; the stories of Rudramadevi, Potana, Palanati yuddham, and Veeresalingam ought to be taught to all Telugu kids. Once the dust settles, I hope the current tensions reduce and better sense prevails.
Yeah, i really hope they don't meddle with history and culture of what is being taught now. They can add about Komaram Bheem, Konda Laxman Bapuji,et.al but that shouldn't stop them from teaching about personalities hailing from andhra.

Don't forget great leaders like KCR, Chennareddy, Kodandaram,etc. On Tankbund, when they remove Seema-Kosta statues, they can install KCR with Bobbili kallu muntha, Chenna with a hidden pocket and kaam chor Kodandaram collecting his monthly paycheck from OU. The statue of Krishnadevaraya (looking like NTR) will obviously be replaced by Prataparudrudu (with KCR-like nose to hint to voters that KCR is as great as Prataparudrudu). I hope they won't put the statue of Nizam collecting taxes from a destitute.

by Sponsored content