What should Seemandhra do?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:07 am

According to KCR and gang, the whole issue about Telangana revolves around how people from Seemandhra have been dominating. These politicians have made it a career by abusing Seemandhra people for everything. In addition, sometimes they say that Telangana has been deliberately kept backward (by Andhras) and at other times, Telangana contributes most of the revenue for AP and that Seemandhra is getting unfair money from this revenue. The first claim is disputed by available data and the second (cleverly incorporating revenue from Hyderabad), contradicts the first. On the one hand, they claim that Seemandhra people are coming with "money bags" and investing in Hyderabad and on the other, that Hyderabad is theirs. If Hyderabad contributes 55% of the state's revenue, a significant part of it has been due to the efforts of Seemandhra people living in Hyderabad. So, Telangana politicians want the hard work of Seemandhra people to pay dividends for Telangana and also want to blame Seemandhra people to fool the people of Telangana. Now that Sonia has unthinkingly decided to grant Telangana (keeping the 2014 election in mind), she has joined the Telangana politician gang in further hurting Seemandhra people. Yesterday, Jayaprakashnarayan was asking this: when a state is divided, the decision makers should ensure that the decision doesn't favor one side and hurts the other. In the case of Telangana Sonia completely ignored Seemandhra and made a decision in Telangana's favor.

After the decision is made, KCR and some Telangana people have been saying that Seemandhra people in Hyderabad don't need to worry about how they will be treated when Telangana becomes an independent state. This smacks of hypocrisy. The whole Telangana movement is based on the rhetoric that Seemandhra people are to blame for problems in Telangana. In addition, there were periodic assertions that Seemandhra people should get out of Hyderabad. So, how can the same politicians now assure Seemandhra people that they will be safe in Telangana? This is pure rhetoric to ensure that the Telangana bill will pass in parliament. Once it is passed, the same politicians will provoke people of Telangana to harass and drive out people of Seemandhra from Hyderabad. In a happy mood, recently, KCR started his "Andhrawaalon bhaago" talk. It is clear that Seemandhra people won't be safe in Hyderabad if the city is administered by Telangana.

Seemandhra people have to face one injustice after the other. If they own businesses, KCR and gang insist on "protection money". If they study at institutions in Hyderabad, they are blamed for taking Telangana seats. If they start educational institutions, they are asked to get out, if they get employment in Hyderabad, they are blamed for unemployment of Telangana people. Now, there is no logical reason why the treatment will be BETTER after Telangana becomes independent. Only fools will trust these politicians.

In one stroke, Sonia and Congress, in collusion with politicians of Telangana, have done grave injustice to Seemandhra by unilaterally dividing the state to the detriment of Seemandhra. This is another reason why Seemandhra people should not trust Congress and the Telangana politicians. To suggest that the decision by Sonis is taken in the interest of Seemandhra and Telangana is to cheat the people of Seemandhra.

In a democracy, politicians targeting people of a region, harassing them and making decisions against their well being, is unacceptable. In this case, that is what has happened. No sensible person from Seemandhra should agree to this without a fight. They should become realistic and protect their interests. They should become hard-nosed and ensure that Sonia and the politicians of Telangana will pay for demonizing Seemandhra people and for making decisions against them and by completely ignoring them. Seemandhra should ensure that the bill never gets to the stage of being introduced in parliament in its current form. Just as Telangana politicians are protecting their petty interests, Seemandhra should protect at least their legitimate interests. Hyderabad should not be allowed to go to Telangana. It should be independently administered even if it goes to Telangana at a latter date. Seemandhra should not trust Sonia and Congress and think that they will build a new capital for them. First of all, no one knows if CONgress will come back to power. Second, if the division is made in an unjust fashion, how can one be sure that the same people will be fair in future? Seemandhra should insist that the independent status of Hyderabad is maintained until a proper capital is built in their region. In addition, Seemandhra should be compensated for the loss of all the central institutes in Hyderabad (Telangana politicians will put a lot of pressure on Seemandhra people to leave those jobs and opportunities once the new state becomes a reality). Until the new institutions in Seemandhra are in place and are running, Hyderabad can not be given to Telangana and the central government has to ensure the safety of Seemandhra people working in those institutions in Hyderabad. In fact, these institutions should be built and be running prior to the real date of splitting the state. The other option is to insist that an outgoing government should not introduce such bills and any decision be left to the incoming central government.

It is time that Seemandhra people stopped sleeping or living in a dreamland and looked at reality and the injustice that had been done to them by Telangana politicians and Sonia.

Sorry for the long-winded post and for any repetitions.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:33 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It is clear that Seemandhra people won't be safe in Hyderabad if the city is administered by Telangana.

This is nonsense. A Gujarati was CM of Bombay when police shot and killed peaceful demonstrators asking for a separate state. Tensions between Marathis and Gujaratis were very high when the new Maharashtra state was created with Bombay as its capital. Gujaratis have been safe in Mumbai even under a Shiv Sena government, and continue to live there in large numbers.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Seemandhra people have to face one injustice after the other.

It is no injustice to Seemandhra people if Telangana wants to go its own way. Seemandhra politicians used to talk about Telugu unity and all that, but from your talk it is clear that you don't care about that. What you and the Seemandhra politicians care about is controlling Hyderabad and the wealth associated with it. If you call Telangana politicians hypocrites, you would be right; but so are you and Seemandhra politicians.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Now, there is no logical reason why the treatment will be BETTER after Telangana becomes independent... how they will be treated when Telangana becomes an independent state.

Telangana is not leaving the Indian Union and becoming an independent state. I would share your concerns were that the case here.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:In a democracy, politicians targeting people of a region, harassing them and making decisions against their well being, is unacceptable. In this case, that is what has happened.

I honestly don't understand how it is targeting people of Seemandhra if a separate Telangana state is created.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:They should become hard-nosed and ensure that Sonia and the politicians of Telangana will pay for demonizing Seemandhra people and for making decisions against them and by completely ignoring them.

And how do you propose to "make them pay?" See above about hypocrisy; you are fanning the flames with your loose talk just like KCR and his goons.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Hyderabad should not be allowed to go to Telangana... Hyderabad can not be given to Telangana

There is no "going to Telangana." Hyderabad without Telangana and Telangana without Hyderabad are both nonsensical ideas. Hyderabad belongs to Telangana, period. Nobody can deign to "give" it to Telangana.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:the central government has to ensure the safety of Seemandhra people working in those institutions in Hyderabad.

If there is any real danger to Seemandhra people in Hyderabad, yes the center should step in to protect them. I find it hard to believe that the Telangana people will make it worse for Seemandhra people than the Marathi people did to Gujaratis in Bombay.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:37 am

Better bet would be to demand for funds to develop, along with new capital city, an intl. airport on par with Shamshabad airport and setup new industries or relocate several large industries located in Hyd until such time Hyd should remain joint capital and funds should be distributed to both states proportionately.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:42 am

confuzzled dude wrote:Better bet would be to demand for funds to develop, along with new capital city, an intl. airport on par with Shamshabad airport and setup new industries or relocate several large industries located in Hyd until such time Hyd should remain joint capital and funds should be distributed to both states proportionately.

Yes, that would be an approach that says, "you go your own way and do well, and I will go off on my own and do well too." My guruvu-gaaru prefers another approach. In a divorce situation, guruvu-gaaru says to the lawyer, "I want to make him/her pay, and make the process as long and as bitter as possible!"

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:51 am

admin anna is simbly on his aandhrula oodaarpu yatra, saying thoo thoo thoo, no praablam no praablam, but it's safe to assume there will be huge disruptions. he iz too much of a big picture, big data, historical precedent kinda guy.

rest of aam aadmis can only rely on statements and not-so-veiled threats emanating from the telengoon leaders and ground reality currently. as it stands, it's a fair and realistic assumption on the part of SAs to assume telangana (hyd too) will be a hostile place to conduct further business and conduct themselves accordingly.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:54 am

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It is clear that Seemandhra people won't be safe in Hyderabad if the city is administered by Telangana.
This is nonsense. A Gujarati was CM of Bombay when police shot and killed peaceful demonstrators asking for a separate state. Tensions between Marathis and Gujaratis were very high when the new Maharashtra state was created with Bombay as its capital. Gujaratis have been safe in Mumbai even under a Shiv Sena government, and continue to live there in large numbers.

To suggest that it is nonsense is being self-serving. For Seemandhra people this is a real issue especially after a decision is made unilaterally and to favor one region and to hurt the other. Seemandhra should see the injustice done to them already.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Seemandhra people have to face one injustice after the other.
It is no injustice to Seemandhra people if Telangana wants to go its own way. Seemandhra politicians used to talk about Telugu unity and all that, but from your talk it is clear that you don't care about that. What you and the Seemandhra politicians care about is controlling Hyderabad and the wealth associated with it. If you call Telangana politicians hypocrites, you would be right; but so are you and Seemandhra politicians.

Seemandhra should forget about Samyuktaandhra when they are being treated unjustly by Telangana politicians. I am not advocating Samyktandhra. I am suggesting that Seemandhra should no longer tolerate the injustice being done by the rhetoric of Telangana politicians and by Sonia unilaterally taking the decision without taking the interests of Seemandhra into consideration. Let there be a division as long as it is done in a fair fashion.
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Now, there is no logical reason why the treatment will be BETTER after Telangana becomes independent.
Telangana is not leaving the Indian Union and becoming an independent state. I would share your concerns were that the case here.

This is clever rhetoric. Seemandhra should not trust Telangana politicians. I am sure that people of Seemandhra living in Hyderabad will face a lot of hardship in an independent Telangana that administers the city of Hyderabad.
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:In a democracy, politicians targeting people of a region, harassing them and making decisions against their well being, is unacceptable. In this case, that is what has happened.
I honestly don't understand how it is targeting people of Seemandhra if a separate Telangana state is created.

The separate state is being created without sorting out the issues related to the investments of Seemandhra in Hyderabad, the harassment of Seemandhra people in Hyderabad, job security, etc. They have to be addressed before a bill to separate and giving administrative powers to Telangana on Hyderabad. Any haste in the division without sorting out such issues, is to the detriment of Seemandhra.
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:They should become hard-nosed and ensure that Sonia and the politicians of Telangana will pay for demonizing Seemandhra people and for making decisions against them and by completely ignoring them.
And how do you propose to "make them pay?" See above about hypocrisy; you are fanning the flames with your loose talk just like KCR and his goons.

By ensurig that Seemandhra's interests are protected (water-sharing, Hyderabad, jobs, institutions, new capital, etc.) before a bill is introduced.
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Hyderabad should not be allowed to go to Telangana... Hyderabad can not be given to Telangana
There is no "going to Telangana." Hyderabad without Telangana and Telangana without Hyderabad are both nonsensical ideas. Hyderabad belongs to Telangana, period. Nobody can deign to "give" it to Telangana.

The Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana before 1956, is no longer the Hyderabad of 2013. You can have your Hyderabad AFTER the contributions of Seemandhra are acknowledged and people of Seemandhra in Hyderabad are protected. Since, there is a history of Telangana politicians harassing Seemandhra people in Hyderabad, Hyderabad's administration can only be given to Telangana after the safety and livelyhood of Seemandhra people are protected. Seemandhra people should not trust Telangana politicians' rhetoric. Iron-clad guarantees are needed. So the best option is to administer Hyderabad independently by the central govt. until the safety and job protection of Seemandhra people are ensured. Whys should Seemandhra people trust Telangana politicians?
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:the central government has to ensure the safety of Seemandhra people working in those institutions in Hyderabad.
If there is any real danger to Seemandhra people in Hyderabad, yes the center should step in to protect them. I find it hard to believe that the Telangana people will make it worse for Seemandhra people than the Marathi people did to Gujaratis in Bombay.

See my comment above.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:04 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Better bet would be to demand for funds to develop, along with new capital city, an intl. airport on par with Shamshabad airport and setup new industries or relocate several large industries located in Hyd until such time Hyd should remain joint capital and funds should be distributed to both states proportionately.

All these plus water sharing should be sorted out before the bill is introduced. There are reasons why Seemandhra can't trust Sonia or Telangana politicians. KCR has already started his Andhra people should leave nonsense. Even if he corrected his statement, it is clear that under his gang's control Hyderabad won't be safe for Seemandhra people. Hyderabad can not be under their control until all issues are sorted out. So, keep it under central control.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:09 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Better bet would be to demand for funds to develop, along with new capital city, an intl. airport on par with Shamshabad airport and setup new industries or relocate several large industries located in Hyd until such time Hyd should remain joint capital and funds should be distributed to both states proportionately.

sonia maata and her henchmen wrote checks the future leaders cant cash. my ass they'll build infrastructure on par with anything approaching hyd. they'll be lucky to build a road.

PS: am not surprised lagadapati is contemplating quitting politics, he'll make out like banjarahills rd#1 reddy if he plays his cards right with the airport construction etc.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:13 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:To suggest that it is nonsense is being self-serving. For Seemandhra people this is a real issue especially after a decision is made unilaterally and to favor one region and to hurt the other. Seemandhra should see the injustice done to them already.

The same sentiments you are expressing now were expressed by Gujaratis in Bombay. They had a greater role in developing Bombay throughout its history, than Seemandhra people had in Hyderabad. They also thought they had a "real issue especially after a decision was made to favor one region and to hurt the other." The last fifty years show us that their concerns were way overblown. This is why I think it is nonsense.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:This is clever rhetoric.

It is the truth. You keep talking about "independent" Telangana. Telangana is not declaring independence.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The separate state is being created without sorting out the issues related to the investments of Seemandhra in Hyderabad, the harassment of Seemandhra people in Hyderabad, job security, etc. They have to be addressed before a bill to separate and giving administrative powers to Telangana on Hyderabad. Any haste in the division without sorting out such issues, is to the detriment of Seemandhra.

India has divided several states in its history, and this is how divisions have occurred in the past. They didn't figure everything out, build a new capital for Gujarat, and settle all claims of harassment, and ensure job security, before inaugurating the new states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:By ensurig that Seemandhra's interests are protected (water-sharing, Hyderabad, jobs, institutions, new capital, etc.) before a bill is introduced.

OK, good luck with that.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana before 1956, is no longer the Hyderabad of 2013.

Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana in 1956 was much, much stronger than Bombay before the Gujaratis came in. Even Nehru was in favor of UT status for Bombay, considering the historical role of Gujarati and Parsi people there.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:16 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: All these plus water sharing should be sorted out before the bill is introduced.

This is just a stalling tactic. I don't see it succeeding. The Telangana people won't wait indefinitely; they were promised a separate state five years ago. But like I said, good luck to you trying to delay this.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Hyderabad can not be under their control until all issues are sorted out. So, keep it under central control.

No way a new Telangana state is inaugurated without Hyderabad in it. The people of Telangana will see that for what it is: the worst of all scenarios.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:19 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:admin anna is simbly on his aandhrula oodaarpu yatra, saying thoo thoo thoo, no praablam no praablam, but it's safe to assume there will be huge disruptions. he iz too much of a big picture, big data, historical precedent kinda guy.

rest of aam aadmis can only rely on statements and not-so-veiled threats emanating from the telengoon leaders and ground reality currently. as it stands, it's a fair and realistic assumption on the part of SAs to assume telangana (hyd too) will be a hostile place to conduct further business and conduct themselves accordingly.

Yeah, I understand that sometimes the "sky is falling, sky is falling!" approach is more attractive.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:32 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:admin anna is simbly on his aandhrula oodaarpu yatra, saying thoo thoo thoo, no praablam no praablam, but it's safe to assume there will be huge disruptions. he iz too much of a big picture, big data, historical precedent kinda guy.

rest of aam aadmis can only rely on statements and not-so-veiled threats emanating from the telengoon leaders and ground reality currently. as it stands, it's a fair and realistic assumption on the part of SAs to assume telangana (hyd too) will be a hostile place to conduct further business and conduct themselves accordingly.
Yeah, I understand that sometimes the "sky is falling, sky is falling!" approach is more attractive.

noooo, it's very safe and sound approach for ppl to take your word over KCR & co's words and actions and they'll be fiinneeee.. I think SA peapal are no longer the hardnosed farmers they used to be back in 50s to 90s, but they'll still see things for what they are.

once the telangana fervor dies out, those ppl will go back to the arrack bottle but the anger at the injustice done to them in SA ppl is just starting. you'll see what the that bitterness will have wrought

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:17 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana in 1956 was much, much stronger than Bombay before the Gujaratis came in. Even Nehru was in favor of UT status for Bombay, considering the historical role of Gujarati and Parsi people there.

WOW! I mean WOW! BHEL, DRDO/L, ECIL, IDPL, IDL, ICRISAT, HAL, HMT, MIDHANI all were established between mid '60s and '70s. Pharma industry from mid '70s onwards. I bet Hyderabad state alone (without Andhra) would not have been beneficiary of all these industries, and the fact that Sanjeeva Reddy & Brahmananda Reddy were from Rayalaseema & Kosta regions, Vengala Rao who is disowned by Telanganites (claiming he was settler) tells me that these guys didn't discriminate against 'T' region, without them Hyd wouldn't have been what it is now.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:24 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana in 1956 was much, much stronger than Bombay before the Gujaratis came in. Even Nehru was in favor of UT status for Bombay, considering the historical role of Gujarati and Parsi people there.

WOW! I mean WOW! BHEL, DRDO/L, ECIL, IDPL, IDL, ICRISAT, HAL, HMT, MIDHANI all were established between mid '60s and '70s. Pharma industry from mid '70s onwards. I bet Hyderabad state alone (without Andhra) would not have been beneficiary of all these industries, and the fact that Sanjeeva Reddy & Brahmananda Reddy were from Rayalaseema & Kosta regions, Vengala Rao who is disowned by Telanganites (claiming he was settler) tells me that these guys didn't discriminate against 'T' region, without them Hyd wouldn't have been what it is now.

Read what I wrote carefully. Before the Gujaratis settled in Bombay, it wasn't even a real city. What I am saying is that the role Gujaratis played in building the city of Bombay was much more than the role Seemandhras played in building Hyderabad. By the time Seemandhra people came to Hyderabad, there was a city with decent (for the time) urban infrastructure to build on. That wasn't the case for Gujaratis in Bombay. Still the Gujaratis' claim to Bombay was rejected in favor of the locals' claim which they decided was even stronger.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:55 pm

Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana in 1956 was much, much stronger than Bombay before the Gujaratis came in. Even Nehru was in favor of UT status for Bombay, considering the historical role of Gujarati and Parsi people there.

WOW! I mean WOW! BHEL, DRDO/L, ECIL, IDPL, IDL, ICRISAT, HAL, HMT, MIDHANI all were established between mid '60s and '70s. Pharma industry from mid '70s onwards. I bet Hyderabad state alone (without Andhra) would not have been beneficiary of all these industries, and the fact that Sanjeeva Reddy & Brahmananda Reddy were from Rayalaseema & Kosta regions, Vengala Rao who is disowned by Telanganites (claiming he was settler) tells me that these guys didn't discriminate against 'T' region, without them Hyd wouldn't have been what it is now.
Read what I wrote carefully. Before the Gujaratis settled in Bombay, it wasn't even a real city. What I am saying is that the role Gujaratis played in building the city of Bombay was much more than the role Seemandhras played in building Hyderabad. By the time Seemandhra people came to Hyderabad, there was a city with decent (for the time) urban infrastructure to build on. That wasn't the case for Gujaratis in Bombay. Still the Gujaratis' claim to Bombay was rejected in favor of the locals' claim which they decided was even stronger.

I'm afraid your analogy is not valid in this case; Comparison with Bombay holds true with Andhraites claim of Chennai not the current split. Gujaratis inhabited Bombay state for centuries, not sure where would you draw the line as a baseline.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:57 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: All these plus water sharing should be sorted out before the bill is introduced.
This is just a stalling tactic. I don't see it succeeding. The Telangana people won't wait indefinitely; they were promised a separate state five years ago. But like I said, good luck to you trying to delay this.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Hyderabad can not be under their control until all issues are sorted out. So, keep it under central control.
No way a new Telangana state is inaugurated without Hyderabad in it. The people of Telangana will see that for what it is: the worst of all scenarios.

This is not a stalling tectic. Like I said, the idea of Samyktaandhra is over. Seemandhra is used to the threats, bandhs and tactics by Telangana politicians. SA gains nothing by trusting the very politicians who blamed SA for everything in the past. Seemandhra should ensure that they won't be taken for a ride by T politicians once they get a separate state. Keeping Hyderabad in the hands of the central govt is an insurance against the divisive behavior and goondaism (and protection money mania) of KCR and gang. SA was willing to build Hyderabad into a prosperous mega city (at cost to SA towns and cities) because they believed in a united AP and in the prosperity of Telangana. Now that T is separating, SA fellows will be suckers not to protect themselves from greedy and selfish T-politicians. Seemandhra should be happy to allow the handover of Hyderabad by the central govt to Telangana once the issues are settled.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:00 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hyderabad that belonged to Telangana in 1956 was much, much stronger than Bombay before the Gujaratis came in. Even Nehru was in favor of UT status for Bombay, considering the historical role of Gujarati and Parsi people there.

WOW! I mean WOW! BHEL, DRDO/L, ECIL, IDPL, IDL, ICRISAT, HAL, HMT, MIDHANI all were established between mid '60s and '70s. Pharma industry from mid '70s onwards. I bet Hyderabad state alone (without Andhra) would not have been beneficiary of all these industries, and the fact that Sanjeeva Reddy & Brahmananda Reddy were from Rayalaseema & Kosta regions, Vengala Rao who is disowned by Telanganites (claiming he was settler) tells me that these guys didn't discriminate against 'T' region, without them Hyd wouldn't have been what it is now.
Read what I wrote carefully. Before the Gujaratis settled in Bombay, it wasn't even a real city. What I am saying is that the role Gujaratis played in building the city of Bombay was much more than the role Seemandhras played in building Hyderabad. By the time Seemandhra people came to Hyderabad, there was a city with decent (for the time) urban infrastructure to build on. That wasn't the case for Gujaratis in Bombay. Still the Gujaratis' claim to Bombay was rejected in favor of the locals' claim which they decided was even stronger.

I'm afraid your analogy is not valid in this case; Comparison with Bombay holds true with Andhraites claim of Chennai not the current split. Gujaratis inhabited Bombay state for centuries, not sure where would you draw the line as a baseline.

Same with Andhra and Madras... bigger role of Andhras in Madras and Gujaratis in Bombay in building the city from the time it was a little collection of villages into a major city. Bigger than the role of coastal Andhra people in building Hyderabad from the ground up.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:07 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
This is not a stalling tectic. Like I said, the idea of Samyktaandhra is over. Seemandhra is used to the threats, bandhs and tactics by Telangana politicians. SA gains nothing by trusting the very politicians who blamed SA for everything in the past. Seemandhra should ensure that they won't be taken for a ride by T politicians once they get a separate state. Keeping Hyderabad in the hands of the central govt is an insurance against the divisive behavior and goondaism (and protection money mania) of KCR and gang. SA was willing to build Hyderabad into a prosperous mega city (at cost to SA towns and cities) because they believed in a united AP and in the prosperity of Telangana. Now that T is separating, SA fellows will be suckers not to protect themselves from greedy and selfish T-politicians. Seemandhra should be happy to allow the handover of Hyderabad by the central govt to Telangana once the issues are settled.

But how does making Hyd an Union Territory help Seemandhra state, that's a flawed logic IMO. Also, do you believe that TRS goons are going to stop collecting hafta just because Hyd bestowed UT status.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:26 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:This is not a stalling tectic.

It is a stalling tactic when it is framed as "no bill until this is resolved." That is against all precedent.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Like I said, the idea of Samyktaandhra is over.

Apparently not. A lot of Seemandhra MPs who protested in Parliament today paid lip service to the idea of unity, when what they -- like you -- care about is controlling Hyderabad and its wealth.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Keeping Hyderabad in the hands of the central govt is an insurance against the divisive behavior and goondaism (and protection money mania) of KCR and gang.

That goes against the only precedent when the people who wanted to split a state also wanted the capital: Bombay into Maharashtra instead of UT or being part of Gujarat. It also goes against the precedent of Madras where Andhras played a historical role in growing that city to what it was.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:23 pm

Here is my answer to guruvu-gaaru's question: what should Seemandhra do?

First, imagine a couple that is getting divorced. Let us call them A and T. They have been married for a long time, and T has wanted a divorce for a long time. Their parents intervened in their previous fights and patched things up, and A and T stayed together. But T now wants a divorce. There is one unusual complication though: they have no choice but to live in divided portions of their current house for the rest of their lives. It is clear which side belongs to whom, but both of them pooled their funds together to put in an entertainment room, which falls in T's side of the house. And the water supply to the house comes in on T's side, and that can't be changed.

Now, the choices for A are: (a) refuse to proceed with a divorce for as long as possible, (b) if it looks like the court will grant a divorce regardless of A's unwillingness to get divorced, then fight to the bitter end about the formalities of separation, or (c) separate amicably because you need to continue to live as neighbors, and because you want to preserve goodwill so T won't mess with the water pipes on his side of the house. As part of (c), they could negotiate A's use of the entertainment room for free for an interim period while A builds another one.

If this was a real situation between two people and A was my friend or family member, my advise would be to choose (c). I would understand that it is very difficult to choose (c) because of the high emotional stress that comes with a divorce, and there is a human temptation to make the other person suffer at least as much as yourself. I would tell A to be aware of these feelings but choose the rational adult approach, because that is what would guarantee a continuing high value for A's side of the house. And it would enable both A and T to seek happiness in their future lives, instead being engaged in a bitter, never-ending tussle across the compound wall they are about to build right through their house.

So what should Seemandhra do? I think Seemandhra should make this an amicable separation and preserve any remaining goodwill. The politicians of Seemandhra should tell the media that they are not opposed to separate Telangana. They should speak directly to the people of Telangana and wish them all the best for the future. They should say a new state won't mean a severing of the family and cultural ties that will always bind Telugu people. Millions of Telugus will have family in both states and those interactions will only increase with time.

They should lobby the center for funds to build a new capital. They should openly seek the support of Telangana people in this endeavor -- they should say, we are fine with Hyderabad as part of Telangana, and we want the support of Telangana politicians and people for our legitimate need for developing a new capital city. If it is positioned this way, I am sure a good fraction of Telangana people will be happy to support the demands of Seemandhra.

Building such goodwill is the best insurance policy for Seemandhra to protect its biggest source of wealth: waters of the mighty rivers Godavari and Krishna. Antagonizing the people of Telangana at this critical moment in their history will only make it easier for opportunistic Telangana politicians to play dangerous games in future with water. The loss that the Seemandhra people feel today -- of a capital city that they helped develop -- will seem like nothing when compared to the potential consequences of water disputes between Telangana and Seemandhra.

If the past is any indication, KCR will lose prominence very quickly. His party won't survive into 2015, probably not even 2014. He and his cronies need public anger at coastal Andhra to remain high for their political survival. If Seemandhra politicians take steps to reduce and preempt such feelings, they will hasten the inevitable political demise of KCR.

My message to the politicians of Seemandhra (including my guruvu-gaaru) is: the people of Telangana can see what you are doing right now, and they have long memories. Any attempt to deprive them of Hyderabad will be remembered even if it is unsuccessful, as it inevitably will be. You have an opportunity right now to reshape the conversation and turn it into one of collaboration instead of rivalry. You have live next door to Telangana in perpetuity, so choose to make a friend instead of an enemy across the new border.

by goodcitizn Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:34 pm

Just like prenups or divorce settlements shouldn't there be agreements on water and power supply as well as resource allocations prior to official bifurcation? Why must Telangana protaganists or the Center construe that as delaying tactics when such agreements in black and white are fundamental to preventing future disputes?

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:43 pm

goodcitizn wrote:Just like prenups or divorce settlements shouldn't there be agreements on water and power supply as well as resource allocations prior to official bifurcation? Why must Telangana protoganists or the Center construe that as delaying tactics when such agreements in black and white are fundamental to preventing future disputes?

I think getting an agreement on water and electricity sharing before formal separation is a good idea. But trying to delay a bill in parliament until this is agreed on is a stalling tactic, because that will unnecessarily drag things out. AFAIK, no such pre-bill restrictions were imposed in previous cases of bifurcation and things worked out just fine. Negotiations were conducted between the two sides even as the parliamentary process was underway. The parliamentary process says "there will be a state of Telangana" -- not how much water or electricity it gets. The bill can be passed and water and electricity sharing can be agreed on before inauguration of the new state.

by goodcitizn Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:50 pm

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:Just like prenups or divorce settlements shouldn't there be agreements on water and power supply as well as resource allocations prior to official bifurcation? Why must Telangana protaganists or the Center construe that as delaying tactics when such agreements in black and white are fundamental to preventing future disputes?
I think getting an agreement on water and electricity sharing before formal separation is a good idea. But trying to delay a bill in parliament until this is agreed on is a stalling tactic, because that will unnecessarily drag things out. AFAIK, no such pre-bill restrictions were imposed in previous cases of bifurcation and things worked out just fine. Negotiations were conducted between the two sides even as the parliamentary process was underway. The parliamentary process says "there will be a state of Telangana" -- not how much water or electricity it gets. The bill can be passed and water and electricity sharing can be agreed on before inauguration of the new state.

If that be the case, who has the Center appointed as its mediator to get the dialog started between Telangana and Seemandhra representatives? What are the things on the agenda for discussion? Shouldn't someone be forthcoming with such details to ease the tension?

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:56 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:Just like prenups or divorce settlements shouldn't there be agreements on water and power supply as well as resource allocations prior to official bifurcation? Why must Telangana protaganists or the Center construe that as delaying tactics when such agreements in black and white are fundamental to preventing future disputes?
I think getting an agreement on water and electricity sharing before formal separation is a good idea. But trying to delay a bill in parliament until this is agreed on is a stalling tactic, because that will unnecessarily drag things out. AFAIK, no such pre-bill restrictions were imposed in previous cases of bifurcation and things worked out just fine. Negotiations were conducted between the two sides even as the parliamentary process was underway. The parliamentary process says "there will be a state of Telangana" -- not how much water or electricity it gets. The bill can be passed and water and electricity sharing can be agreed on before inauguration of the new state.

If that be the case, who has the Center appointed as its mediator to get the dialog started between Telangana and Seemandhra representatives? What are the things on the agenda for discussion? Shouldn't someone be forthcoming with such details to ease the tension?

Chidambaram made a statement today that they are beginning this process. He listed out the topics for discussion. Apart from water and electricity, he mentioned safety and security of the people in all three regions, and guaranteeing their rights.

by goodcitizn Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:02 pm

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:Just like prenups or divorce settlements shouldn't there be agreements on water and power supply as well as resource allocations prior to official bifurcation? Why must Telangana protaganists or the Center construe that as delaying tactics when such agreements in black and white are fundamental to preventing future disputes?
I think getting an agreement on water and electricity sharing before formal separation is a good idea. But trying to delay a bill in parliament until this is agreed on is a stalling tactic, because that will unnecessarily drag things out. AFAIK, no such pre-bill restrictions were imposed in previous cases of bifurcation and things worked out just fine. Negotiations were conducted between the two sides even as the parliamentary process was underway. The parliamentary process says "there will be a state of Telangana" -- not how much water or electricity it gets. The bill can be passed and water and electricity sharing can be agreed on before inauguration of the new state.

If that be the case, who has the Center appointed as its mediator to get the dialog started between Telangana and Seemandhra representatives? What are the things on the agenda for discussion? Shouldn't someone be forthcoming with such details to ease the tension?
Chidambaram made a statement today that they are beginning this process. He listed out the topics for discussion. Apart from water and electricity, he mentioned safety and security of the people in all three regions, and guaranteeing their rights.

Good. Did he also mention anything about who from the Center will spearhead the process, representatives from each side, the venue and the time frame? Sorry I haven't read any news today.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:02 pm

Idéfix wrote:Here is my answer to guruvu-gaaru's question: what should Seemandhra do?

First, imagine a couple that is getting divorced. Let us call them A and T. They have been married for a long time, and T has wanted a divorce for a long time. Their parents intervened in their previous fights and patched things up, and A and T stayed together. But T now wants a divorce. There is one unusual complication though: they have no choice but to live in divided portions of their current house for the rest of their lives. It is clear which side belongs to whom, but both of them pooled their funds together to put in an entertainment room, which falls in T's side of the house. And the water supply to the house comes in on T's side, and that can't be changed.

Now, the choices for A are: (a) refuse to proceed with a divorce for as long as possible, (b) if it looks like the court will grant a divorce regardless of A's unwillingness to get divorced, then fight to the bitter end about the formalities of separation, or (c) separate amicably because you need to continue to live as neighbors, and because you want to preserve goodwill so T won't mess with the water pipes on his side of the house. As part of (c), they could negotiate A's use of the entertainment room for free for an interim period while A builds another one.

If this was a real situation between two people and A was my friend or family member, my advise would be to choose (c). I would understand that it is very difficult to choose (c) because of the high emotional stress that comes with a divorce, and there is a human temptation to make the other person suffer at least as much as yourself. I would tell A to be aware of these feelings but choose the rational adult approach, because that is what would guarantee a continuing high value for A's side of the house. And it would enable both A and T to seek happiness in their future lives, instead being engaged in a bitter, never-ending tussle across the compound wall they are about to build right through their house.

So what should Seemandhra do? I think Seemandhra should make this an amicable separation and preserve any remaining goodwill. The politicians of Seemandhra should tell the media that they are not opposed to separate Telangana. They should speak directly to the people of Telangana and wish them all the best for the future. They should say a new state won't mean a severing of the family and cultural ties that will always bind Telugu people. Millions of Telugus will have family in both states and those interactions will only increase with time.

They should lobby the center for funds to build a new capital. They should openly seek the support of Telangana people in this endeavor -- they should say, we are fine with Hyderabad as part of Telangana, and we want the support of Telangana politicians and people for our legitimate need for developing a new capital city. If it is positioned this way, I am sure a good fraction of Telangana people will be happy to support the demands of Seemandhra.

Building such goodwill is the best insurance policy for Seemandhra to protect its biggest source of wealth: waters of the mighty rivers Godavari and Krishna. Antagonizing the people of Telangana at this critical moment in their history will only make it easier for opportunistic Telangana politicians to play dangerous games in future with water. The loss that the Seemandhra people feel today -- of a capital city that they helped develop -- will seem like nothing when compared to the potential consequences of water disputes between Telangana and Seemandhra.

If the past is any indication, KCR will lose prominence very quickly. His party won't survive into 2015, probably not even 2014. He and his cronies need public anger at coastal Andhra to remain high for their political survival. If Seemandhra politicians take steps to reduce and preempt such feelings, they will hasten the inevitable political demise of KCR.

My message to the politicians of Seemandhra (including my guruvu-gaaru) is: the people of Telangana can see what you are doing right now, and they have long memories. Any attempt to deprive them of Hyderabad will be remembered even if it is unsuccessful, as it inevitably will be. You have an opportunity right now to reshape the conversation and turn it into one of collaboration instead of rivalry. You have live next door to Telangana in perpetuity, so choose to make a friend instead of an enemy across the new border.

You are comparing Telangana to China and SA to India. I don't think SA should look at itself in such a disadvantaged frame of mind. The cockiness of Telangana is more to do with what Sonia has done. There is still time to correct her mistake. I agree with JP - there shouldn't be one winner and one loser in this separation. If there is, that will lead to long term bitterness and problems between the two. There is still time to draft the bill in a way that neither T nor SA think that they are done injustice. Just imagining how SA would have been by now if we never merged with T in the first place.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:07 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:You are comparing Telangana to China and SA to India.

I don't know where you are getting that, guruvu-gaaru! I could be wrong on this, but I don't think China was ever in a political union with India and then wanted to separate taking the capital with it.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:08 pm

goodcitizn wrote:Good. Did he also mention anything about who from the Center will spearhead the process, representatives from each side, the venue and the time frame? Sorry I haven't read any news today.

I don't think he did. I think they need to do that pronto so that saner voices can also get some airtime, not just the "sky is falling!" types on both sides.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:10 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:You are comparing Telangana to China and SA to India.
I don't know where you are getting that, guruvu-gaaru! I could be wrong on this, but I don't think China was ever in a political union with India and then wanted to separate taking the capital with it.

In terms of advantage and disadvantage in a dispute.

In reality, the greed of T won't pay dividends in the end. Just wait and see.

by Guest Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:10 pm

Idéfix wrote:Here is my answer to guruvu-gaaru's question: what should Seemandhra do?

First, imagine a couple that is getting divorced. Let us call them A and T. They have been married for a long time, and T has wanted a divorce for a long time. Their parents intervened in their previous fights and patched things up, and A and T stayed together. But T now wants a divorce.

A is the not the one seeking divorce. It is T who is trying to force A to do so. So why shld T get all the best things while A is advised to sacrifice? So you are telling A to a) compromise, sacrifice and shut up with whatever she got. b) Be at the mercy of T and butter up to him so that he will soften and throw some crumbles at her c) threatened that if she doesn't agree to all that T fancies, she's going to face dire consequences from T.

No court will agree to this kind of one sided divorce.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:11 pm

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:Good. Did he also mention anything about who from the Center will spearhead the process, representatives from each side, the venue and the time frame? Sorry I haven't read any news today.
I don't think he did. I think they need to do that pronto so that saner voices can also get some airtime, not just the "sky is falling!" types on both sides.

Yeah, hopefully, the cockiness by T will evaporate in the end.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:13 pm

kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Here is my answer to guruvu-gaaru's question: what should Seemandhra do?

First, imagine a couple that is getting divorced. Let us call them A and T. They have been married for a long time, and T has wanted a divorce for a long time. Their parents intervened in their previous fights and patched things up, and A and T stayed together. But T now wants a divorce.

A is the not the one seeking divorce. It is T who is trying to force A to do so. So why shld T get all the best things while A is advised to sacrifice? So you are telling A to a) compromise, sacrifice and shut up with whatever she got. b) Be at the mercy of T and butter up to him so that he will soften and throw some crumbles at her c) threatened that if she doesn't agree to all that T fancies, she's going to face dire consequences from T.

No court will agree to this kind of one sided divorce.

Precisely. There isn't much of difference between what PP is saying and how KCR is behaving. PP is saying with a smirk on his face and KCR is doing it with a bottle in his hand. As soon as Sonia corrects her mistake and the bill is drafted in an equitable manner, KCR will grab ten other bottles and PP will start complaining.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:16 pm

kinnera wrote:A is the not the one seeking divorce. It is T who is trying to force A to do so...
No court will agree to this kind of one sided divorce.

The requirement for divorce in most civilized places is that one of the partners wants out. It doesn't always have to be both parties. A has been trying to prevent T from getting out of what T thinks is a bad marriage for decades now; no courts in civilized countries force people to stay in bad marriages.

by smArtha Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:18 pm

Idéfix wrote:So what should Seemandhra do?
I think Seemandhra should make this an amicable separation and preserve any remaining goodwill.
Building such goodwill is the best insurance policy for Seemandhra to protect its biggest source of wealth: waters of the mighty rivers Godavari and Krishna.
They should lobby the center for funds to build a new capital.

I do agree with this direction. I'm still surprised at the politicians and leaders of A-side crying deceit. Over the last decade+ when the forces on T-side were uniting - across political divide - their A-counterparts blissfully relied on group wise backroom politics and engineering instead of building a strategy and consensus among themselves should they face this day. If they acted in time and sensibly, they'd have already got some headway and extract suitable promises from Centre and T-state should the separation happen.

Even now, I think only CBN spoke sensibly, for once in the last decade or so. He said let's get moving with this and extract about half a million crores needed for building capital and other parts of A. I think all forces on A-side should now unite and extract the best from the Centre and T-side to compensate for their loss and rebuilding efforts. The conditions to sign the deal can be
a) Centre sanctioning up to a million crores in as few installments as possible - ten at the most - i.e at the least one lakh crores each year for the next 10 years towards rebuilding efforts.
b) Finalize all resource sharing agreements with T-state with Central Govt guarantees and protection and ensure their adherence during this 10-year transition period.
c) They should get an arrangement that they'll continue to keep Hyderabad as a common capital city with the Central Govt handling administration/law and order till (a) and (b) are met to the agreed levels.
d) If the Centre doesn't heed to any of these, they should stop paying any taxes to the Centre and re-route all that towards their rebuilding efforts. Basically, operate as an independent and autonomous economic unit running their own operations till they can accelerate and be on par with the best states and cities of the country.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:35 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:You are comparing Telangana to China and SA to India.
I don't know where you are getting that, guruvu-gaaru! I could be wrong on this, but I don't think China was ever in a political union with India and then wanted to separate taking the capital with it.

In terms of advantage and disadvantage in a dispute.

In reality, the greed of T won't pay dividends in the end. Just wait and see.

I don't think Telangana has an advantage; I am saying Seemandhra has more to lose from long-term animosity than can be gained by fighting tooth and nail over Hyderabad. Seemandhra politicians should see the writing on the wall and extract concessions to fund their own new state, instead of trying to hang on to control of Hyderabad.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:36 pm

Idéfix wrote:Here is my answer to guruvu-gaaru's question: what should Seemandhra do?

First, imagine a couple that is getting divorced. Let us call them A and T. They have been married for a long time, and T has wanted a divorce for a long time. Their parents intervened in their previous fights and patched things up, and A and T stayed together. But T now wants a divorce. There is one unusual complication though: they have no choice but to live in divided portions of their current house for the rest of their lives. It is clear which side belongs to whom, but both of them pooled their funds together to put in an entertainment room, which falls in T's side of the house. And the water supply to the house comes in on T's side, and that can't be changed.

It's more like 'T' side of the house was raised to 3 floors using common monies, and now 'T' says screw you, build 3 floors on your side with your own monies.

Idéfix wrote:
Now, the choices for A are: (a) refuse to proceed with a divorce for as long as possible, (b) if it looks like the court will grant a divorce regardless of A's unwillingness to get divorced, then fight to the bitter end about the formalities of separation, or (c) separate amicably because you need to continue to live as neighbors, and because you want to preserve goodwill so T won't mess with the water pipes on his side of the house. As part of (c), they could negotiate A's use of the entertainment room for free for an interim period while A builds another one.

Goodwill! I thought 'T' folks are the ones that started all this mudslinging and cried foul.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:36 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Precisely. There isn't much of difference between what PP is saying and how KCR is behaving.

Hahaha, guruvu-gaaru, this must be a new form of advaitam... nakka and nAgalOkam are both the same.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:40 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Goodwill! I thought 'T' folks are the ones that started all this mudslinging and cried foul.

It is Telangana politicians who started the mudslinging. They took advantage of a vacuum of leadership among Telugus, and divided people using Andhra people as scapegoats for Telangana's problems. If we could change all that, great, I would be all for changing that. But we are where we are. In this situation, the choice for SA is to make this a long-drawn-out and acrimonious, or make it a quick and amicable one. The latter choice will make it harder for T politicians to rally the T people against SA in future, on issues like water.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:42 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:Just like prenups or divorce settlements shouldn't there be agreements on water and power supply as well as resource allocations prior to official bifurcation? Why must Telangana protaganists or the Center construe that as delaying tactics when such agreements in black and white are fundamental to preventing future disputes?
I think getting an agreement on water and electricity sharing before formal separation is a good idea. But trying to delay a bill in parliament until this is agreed on is a stalling tactic, because that will unnecessarily drag things out. AFAIK, no such pre-bill restrictions were imposed in previous cases of bifurcation and things worked out just fine. Negotiations were conducted between the two sides even as the parliamentary process was underway. The parliamentary process says "there will be a state of Telangana" -- not how much water or electricity it gets. The bill can be passed and water and electricity sharing can be agreed on before inauguration of the new state.

If that be the case, who has the Center appointed as its mediator to get the dialog started between Telangana and Seemandhra representatives? What are the things on the agenda for discussion? Shouldn't someone be forthcoming with such details to ease the tension?

Now that anti-telangana protests are in full swing all over SeemAndhra just as pro-telanagana protests were a couple of years ago, shouldn't the center find out their concerns before introducing the bill?

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Idéfix wrote:Here is my answer to guruvu-gaaru's question: what should Seemandhra do?

First, imagine a couple that is getting divorced. Let us call them A and T. They have been married for a long time, and T has wanted a divorce for a long time. Their parents intervened in their previous fights and patched things up, and A and T stayed together. But T now wants a divorce. There is one unusual complication though: they have no choice but to live in divided portions of their current house for the rest of their lives. It is clear which side belongs to whom, but both of them pooled their funds together to put in an entertainment room, which falls in T's side of the house. And the water supply to the house comes in on T's side, and that can't be changed.

Now, the choices for A are: (a) refuse to proceed with a divorce for as long as possible, (b) if it looks like the court will grant a divorce regardless of A's unwillingness to get divorced, then fight to the bitter end about the formalities of separation, or (c) separate amicably because you need to continue to live as neighbors, and because you want to preserve goodwill so T won't mess with the water pipes on his side of the house. As part of (c), they could negotiate A's use of the entertainment room for free for an interim period while A builds another one.

If this was a real situation between two people and A was my friend or family member, my advise would be to choose (c). I would understand that it is very difficult to choose (c) because of the high emotional stress that comes with a divorce, and there is a human temptation to make the other person suffer at least as much as yourself. I would tell A to be aware of these feelings but choose the rational adult approach, because that is what would guarantee a continuing high value for A's side of the house. And it would enable both A and T to seek happiness in their future lives, instead being engaged in a bitter, never-ending tussle across the compound wall they are about to build right through their house.

So what should Seemandhra do? I think Seemandhra should make this an amicable separation and preserve any remaining goodwill. The politicians of Seemandhra should tell the media that they are not opposed to separate Telangana. They should speak directly to the people of Telangana and wish them all the best for the future. They should say a new state won't mean a severing of the family and cultural ties that will always bind Telugu people. Millions of Telugus will have family in both states and those interactions will only increase with time.

They should lobby the center for funds to build a new capital. They should openly seek the support of Telangana people in this endeavor -- they should say, we are fine with Hyderabad as part of Telangana, and we want the support of Telangana politicians and people for our legitimate need for developing a new capital city. If it is positioned this way, I am sure a good fraction of Telangana people will be happy to support the demands of Seemandhra.

Building such goodwill is the best insurance policy for Seemandhra to protect its biggest source of wealth: waters of the mighty rivers Godavari and Krishna. Antagonizing the people of Telangana at this critical moment in their history will only make it easier for opportunistic Telangana politicians to play dangerous games in future with water. The loss that the Seemandhra people feel today -- of a capital city that they helped develop -- will seem like nothing when compared to the potential consequences of water disputes between Telangana and Seemandhra.

If the past is any indication, KCR will lose prominence very quickly. His party won't survive into 2015, probably not even 2014. He and his cronies need public anger at coastal Andhra to remain high for their political survival. If Seemandhra politicians take steps to reduce and preempt such feelings, they will hasten the inevitable political demise of KCR.

My message to the politicians of Seemandhra (including my guruvu-gaaru) is: the people of Telangana can see what you are doing right now, and they have long memories. Any attempt to deprive them of Hyderabad will be remembered even if it is unsuccessful, as it inevitably will be. You have an opportunity right now to reshape the conversation and turn it into one of collaboration instead of rivalry. You have live next door to Telangana in perpetuity, so choose to make a friend instead of an enemy across the new border.

you got any statesman like advise for your side, buddy? what do you think andhra ppl feel now, being told my KCR and telangoons that they'll be targeted etc and after being told their claim to hyderabad is invalidated...you think seemandhra ppl are going to forgive and forget?

by Guest Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:44 pm

Idéfix wrote:
kinnera wrote:A is the not the one seeking divorce. It is T who is trying to force A to do so...So why shld T get all the best things while A is advised to sacrifice? So you are telling A to a) compromise, sacrifice and shut up with whatever she got. b) Be at the mercy of T and butter up to him so that he will soften and throw some crumbles at her c) threatened that if she doesn't agree to all that T fancies, she's going to face dire consequences from T.
No court will agree to this kind of one sided divorce.
The requirement for divorce in most civilized places is that one of the partners wants out. It doesn't always have to be both parties. A has been trying to prevent T from getting out of what T thinks is a bad marriage for decades now; no courts in civilized countries force people to stay in bad marriages.

Divorce, sure. But one sided sharing of the property that they both worked hard and built together (granted, let's assume that T contributed equally too though that may not be true)..NO! T can't say, 'I'll keep everything. You go get your stuff from your mom and dad."

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:46 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Precisely. There isn't much of difference between what PP is saying and how KCR is behaving.
Hahaha, guruvu-gaaru, this must be a new form of advaitam... nakka and nAgalOkam are both the same.

Yeah. Your sugar-coated, polished advice and his Aandhrawaalon bhaago try to achieve the same thing.

On a separate note, your Kukatpally MLA (JP), apparently has been threatened by the goons after he made the statement that there should be no winners or losers - just another "advice" from the T gang to a guy who is straightforward. I suppose you and KCR are assuring him that he is just going through hallucinations, not real threats. I hope JP will move to Kosta and join the cabinet there. He doesn't deserve the crap he is getting from the goons.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:47 pm

smArtha wrote:I do agree with this direction. I'm still surprised at the politicians and leaders of A-side crying deceit. Over the last decade+ when the forces on T-side were uniting - across political divide - their A-counterparts blissfully relied on group wise backroom politics and engineering instead of building a strategy and consensus among themselves should they face this day. If they acted in time and sensibly, they'd have already got some headway and extract suitable promises from Centre and T-state should the separation happen.

Yeah, if SA leaders had dealt with this problem differently, KCR could have been prevented from becoming what he is now. The state could have been saved as one unit with the right kind of leadership. It is sad that Telugus did not produce statesmen in this generation who could do that.

smArtha wrote:Even now, I think only CBN spoke sensibly, for once in the last decade or so. He said let's get moving with this and extract about half a million crores needed for building capital and other parts of A. I think all forces on A-side should now unite and extract the best from the Centre and T-side to compensate for their loss and rebuilding efforts. The conditions to sign the deal can be
a) Centre sanctioning up to a million crores in as few installments as possible - ten at the most - i.e at the least one lakh crores each year for the next 10 years towards rebuilding efforts.
b) Finalize all resource sharing agreements with T-state with Central Govt guarantees and protection and ensure their adherence during this 10-year transition period.
c) They should get an arrangement that they'll continue to keep Hyderabad as a common capital city with the Central Govt handling administration/law and order till (a) and (b) are met to the agreed levels.
d) If the Centre doesn't heed to any of these, they should stop paying any taxes to the Centre and re-route all that towards their rebuilding efforts. Basically, operate as an independent and autonomous economic unit running their own operations till they can accelerate and be on par with the best states and cities of the country.

I agree with most of what you say. The only point I disagree with is (c). I think it is OK if the the center lays down conditions for protection of the rights of all people -- failing which, it will automatically step in. But like with every other city after bifurcating a state, the state government should have jurisdiction until it proves unequal to the task.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:55 pm

Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Goodwill! I thought 'T' folks are the ones that started all this mudslinging and cried foul.
It is Telangana politicians who started the mudslinging. They took advantage of a vacuum of leadership among Telugus, and divided people using Andhra people as scapegoats for Telangana's problems. If we could change all that, great, I would be all for changing that. But we are where we are. In this situation, the choice for SA is to make this a long-drawn-out and acrimonious, or make it a quick and amicable one. The latter choice will make it harder for T politicians to rally the T people against SA in future, on issues like water.

It is one thing for that idiot Professor Jayashankar who lived all his life insecure and died insecure (and belonged to a different generation) to spew nonsense like "puri mutton vs idly sambar", it's completely different thing for this generation folks who have been living abroad to kowtow to outdated philosophies of the older folks (that carry certain baggage), without digging into the facts. That's what is most disappointing of all this for me.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:56 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:you got any statesman like advise for your side, buddy? what do you think andhra ppl feel now, being told my KCR and telangoons that they'll be targeted etc and after being told their claim to hyderabad is invalidated...you think seemandhra ppl are going to forgive and forget?

Yes, I have advise for my side, and I have mentioned many of those things already.

My advice to Telangana politicians: do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Hyderabad is the goose that lays golden eggs for you, don't kill it by making Andhra people feel unwelcome or worried for their safety. Hyderabad won't even be a shadow of what it is now if you encourage, induce, or compel Seemandhra people to leave. Make overtures to Andhra businessmen in Hyderabad and elsewhere in Telangana, and make sure that those businesses continue as usual. Make overtures to Andhra politicians on sharing Hyderabad as a joint capital, without talking nonsense about paying rent or employees having to move back to Seemandhra. For decades you have gotten by blaming Andhra people as scapegoats for your lack of leadership and inability to deliver development. Your excuses are about to run out; this is the time to change your tactics, or you will be history like the Nizams before you. If you run Hyderabad into the ground now, you won't have any AndhrOLLu to blame any more!

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:59 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Goodwill! I thought 'T' folks are the ones that started all this mudslinging and cried foul.
It is Telangana politicians who started the mudslinging. They took advantage of a vacuum of leadership among Telugus, and divided people using Andhra people as scapegoats for Telangana's problems. If we could change all that, great, I would be all for changing that. But we are where we are. In this situation, the choice for SA is to make this a long-drawn-out and acrimonious, or make it a quick and amicable one. The latter choice will make it harder for T politicians to rally the T people against SA in future, on issues like water.

It is one thing for that idiot Professor Jayashankar who lived all his life insecure and died insecure (and belonged to a different generation) to spew nonsense like "puri mutton vs idly sambar", it's completely different thing for this generation folks who have been living abroad to kowtow to outdated philosophies of the older folks (that carry certain baggage), without digging into the facts. That's what is most disappointing of all this for me.

I don't know if you meant that for me, but I don't buy into that Andhra-baiting nonsense. I also don't buy into Telangana-baiting, and portraying Hyderabad's development as a result of Seemandhra investments only.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:02 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Precisely. There isn't much of difference between what PP is saying and how KCR is behaving.
Hahaha, guruvu-gaaru, this must be a new form of advaitam... nakka and nAgalOkam are both the same.

Yeah. Your sugar-coated, polished advice and his Aandhrawaalon bhaago try to achieve the same thing.

Guruvu-gaaru, you posed a question with the thread, and I gave you my answer. You may not agree with it, but I stand by my rationale. I may identify more with Telangana, but I certainly want Seemandhra to continue to prosper going forward. I haven't been saying things like "nASanamaipOtAru" etc. about Seemandhra. My advise is based on what I think best protects that prosperity.

by smArtha Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:08 pm

Idéfix wrote:I agree with most of what you say. The only point I disagree with is (c). I think it is OK if the the center lays down conditions for protection of the rights of all people -- failing which, it will automatically step in. But like with every other city after bifurcating a state, the state government should have jurisdiction until it proves unequal to the task.

If you are referring to the Mumbai - after Maharastra and Gujarat partition, the kind of political leadership at the Centre then was different. It had the vision and stability to ensure that such protection is guaranteed irrespective of who is ruling on either side of the divide. In the current era of coalition politics, we cannot take a chance that the Centre would intervene when State Govt deviates from its responsibilities. It depends on who is supporting the Central Govt and who has a political say at that moment. So, better to get this Law and Order control guaranteed as part of the deal. IMO, when Capital is being shared there isn't much lost having the police and city admin under Central rule for the transition period. Revenues from Hyderabad can be shared in a progressively decreasing proportion with A-side say starting at 50% at separation and reducing 5% each year till the end of 10 year period.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:30 pm

Idéfix wrote:
I don't know if you meant that for me, but I don't buy into that Andhra-baiting nonsense. I also don't buy into Telangana-baiting, and portraying Hyderabad's development as a result of Seemandhra investments only.

No. Not you. I've seen several incidents in DC area; 'T' folks protested on August 15th and at various Telugu cultural gatherings & boycotted several. I'm yet to see a single T-ite openly or wholeheartedly speak against 'T' state. I don't buy into that SeemAndhra investments propaganda either I don't who started it but it's a collective effort of entire A.P, every region contributed for the development of Hyderabad.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:40 pm

smArtha wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I agree with most of what you say. The only point I disagree with is (c). I think it is OK if the the center lays down conditions for protection of the rights of all people -- failing which, it will automatically step in. But like with every other city after bifurcating a state, the state government should have jurisdiction until it proves unequal to the task.

If you are referring to the Mumbai - after Maharastra and Gujarat partition, the kind of political leadership at the Centre then was different. It had the vision and stability to ensure that such protection is guaranteed irrespective of who is ruling on either side of the divide. In the current era of coalition politics, we cannot take a chance that the Centre would intervene when State Govt deviates from its responsibilities. It depends on who is supporting the Central Govt and who has a political say at that moment. So, better to get this Law and Order control guaranteed as part of the deal. IMO, when Capital is being shared there isn't much lost having the police and city admin under Central rule for the transition period. Revenues from Hyderabad can be shared in a progressively decreasing proportion with A-side say starting at 50% at separation and reducing 5% each year till the end of 10 year period.

I agree about revenue sharing -- a straight-line taper like that is easy to plan for on both sides, and will ensure fairness.

I see your point about stability of central leadership, but I am concerned about the Chandigarh situation in perpetuity. It is to nobody's benefit if Hyderabad ends up as a UT like Chandigarh. If Hyderabad is a UT, it will become a credible fallback option as perpetual capital for SA; all SA would then need to do is convince the center to keep extending the duration that Hyderabad stays a UT. Given that SA will have more MPs than T which can translate to greater clout in Delhi, this is a legitimate concern for Telangana. Having a credible fallback also reduces the pressure on SA politicians to agree on a new capital. It is a really difficult decision, and I don't see easy agreement, and in such a situation it is not a good idea to give them an out.

So, in my mind, any compromise on this would have to be within the framework of Hyderabad being an integral part of Telangana from the get go. I could see a deal worked out where Seemandhra gets some guaranteed representation for the transitional period in GHMC, HMDA, etc. and police officers of Seemandhra cadre continue to be posted to Hyderabad as now during the transition so law and order concerns are also addressed.

by Sponsored content