Is this Hyderabad History?

by smArtha Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:23 pm

Received this via FB forward. Is this historically correct?

1) The city of Hyderabad was founded in 1591 AD by Quli Qutub Shah of Qutub Shahi Dynasty commonly known as Golconda Dynasty. This dynasty have had Hyderabad as their capital till 1687. This dynasty built buildings like Chaarminar, Golconda Fort, Tombs, Hussain Sagar lake, Gosh Mahal palace etc.

THIS DYNASTY COVERED ALMOST ENTIRE ANDHRAPRADESH as we see today.(http://www.mapsofindia.com/history/qutb-sahi-dynasty.html) Which implicates that, All the people of Andhra and Rayalaseema and Bellary were paying taxes to Qutub shahis , which were used to built the city from 1591- 1687.

‪#‎Fact1‬ Hyderabad has been Historically and Financially linked to People of Andhra and Rayalseema for the first 200 years of it's inception. Not just the 60 years after independence

2) After the annexation of Golconda Dynasty by Mughals in 1687, Entire Telangana, Rayalseema, Andhra came under the control of Aurangzeb, Later after the fall of Mughals, Nizam-ul-mulk established a new empire called " Asif Jahi dynasty commonly known as Nizam state/ Hyderabad state in the year 1724.

3) When the Nizams founded their dynasty, Even then the Entire Andhra pradesh, was a part of the dynasty , this means, even then Hyderabad has been the capital of Entire Andhra pradesh that we see today, taxes collected from all regions, with a greater proportion from fertile coastal lands were used in building the capital city of Hyderabad. In 1766 1st treaty nizam gave away the Northern Circars (Coastal Andhra) to british,in return for payment of 90,000 pounds annually by the British to the Nizam, With Guntur , Bellary, Rayalseema still being a part of Nizam empire. This is when 45 pounds of money would fetch you 1 Kg of Gold!

4) in 1768- 2nd treaty- as nizam succumbed to British , had to forge a gesture of friendship ,british payed an annual allowance of 50,000 pounds. In 1788 nizam gave up Guntur district to British in return for an annual tribute of rs 7 lakhs. In 1798, nizam signed the subsidiary alliance treaty with british. In 1800, nizam ceded the 4 districts of then kadapa, ananthapur,kurnool,bellary,in return for the payment for the maintainanace of the subsidiary force in hyderabad. Thus by 1802 coastal andhra and rayalasemma came under the rule of British.

‪#‎Fact2‬ Thus it clear The entire Andhra PRadesh that we see today has a historical association with hyderabad, which the congress Working Committee has snapped with a stroke of pen.

5) The Hyderabad state, Nizam was finally ruling had 50% of Telangana and 50% of land from Maharastra , Karnataka ! This means, at no point of time in History, Hyderabad was built with taxes of Telangana alone, as claimed by Separatists politicians (http://bit.ly/1440vZt) . Again the same funda applies that Borefed Farming in Telangana is a very recent phenemenon, the naturally river deltas have been the dominant tax contributors, here the Raichur doab areas, Nanded areas have contributed more taxes than the counterpart Telangana region to Nizams, this was one of the reasons for the surplus budget of Nizams.

After the Annexation of Nizam state by Indian army by operation Polo , in 1948 ! The new Hyderabad state was formed, with a Assembly, This region was split into 3 parts on the basis of 1st SRC report, on Linguistic grounds.The Marthawada going into Maharastra, Kannada part to Karantaka! (Ironically both these two regions are backward compared to other parts in their states, which means it has something to do with Dynastical rule of Nizams.)

On 3 rd December 1955, Out of 147 Legislators present in the then Hyderabad State Assembly 103 voted in favor of Merger of Telangana and Andhra , while only 29 voted against it. While 15 remained Neutral. . And thus, Telangana was merged into Andhra Pradesh, according to the wishes of the representatives of People.

In this backdrop, the state of Andhra Pradesh was re-unified! (not formed) and thus Hyderabad cannot be only of Telanganites

by truthbetold Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:33 pm

Smartha,
that history is broadly true. I am not sure of each detail but broadly true.
Thanks for publishing the historic details.
T backwardness is primarily because of t's feudal culture. Have you seen shyam benegals ankur? That story is repeated few thousands of times in t area.this culture was perpetuated by Nisan 's rule.
How did gulbarga and nanded do economically?

by confuzzled dude Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:23 pm

#5, I made the very same argument the other day in one of the discussions here.

The following appears to support the assertion made by the article posted by OP though it doesn't give the length of their ruling over those said regions

http://www.vepachedu.org/golconda.html

"Quli Qutub Shah extended his rule by capturing forts at Warnagal, Kondapalli, Eluru, and Rajamundry, while Krishnadevaraya was busy fighting the ruler of Orissa. He defeated Sitapati Raju alias Shitab Khan, the ruler of Khammam Mettu (Khammam) and captured the fort. He also forced Orissa ruler to surrender all the territories between the mouths of Krishna and Godavari rivers. He was able to occupy Eluru, Rajamundry and Machilipatnam extending his rule to coastal Andhra. Quli’s campaign against Krishnadevaraya continued until Timmarusu, the Prime Minister of Krishnadevaraya, defeated the Golconda army."

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:41 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:#5, I made the very same argument the other day in one of the discussions here.

The following appears to support the assertion made by the article posted by OP though it doesn't give the length of their ruling over those said regions

http://www.vepachedu.org/golconda.html

"Quli Qutub Shah extended his rule by capturing forts at Warnagal, Kondapalli, Eluru, and Rajamundry, while Krishnadevaraya was busy fighting the ruler of Orissa. He defeated Sitapati Raju alias Shitab Khan, the ruler of Khammam Mettu (Khammam) and captured the fort. He also forced Orissa ruler to surrender all the territories between the mouths of Krishna and Godavari rivers. He was able to occupy Eluru, Rajamundry and Machilipatnam extending his rule to coastal Andhra. Quli’s campaign against Krishnadevaraya continued until Timmarusu, the Prime Minister of Krishnadevaraya, defeated the Golconda army."

Is this Hyderabad History? Qutb-shahi-dynasty-map

by smArtha Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:03 am

Thanks for the Qutb Shahi dynasty map. So, most of what is today's north and coastal andhra is very much part of the Qutb Shahi rule? If any, parts of telangana and rayalaseema are left out of this. Looking at the Vijayanagara Empire, it seemed to cover the whole of andhra too leaving hyderabad and north telangana areas. Was it Kakatiyas that ruled before Vijayanagara Empire? Wonder what their empire map looked like?

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:21 pm

The history is broadly correct. I mentioned it before here, and it addresses Kakatiya and Vijayanagar empires as well: https://such.forumotion.com/t14598-looks-like-telangana-is-a-certainty#112420

Hyderabad became a large city under the Nizams, because they looted the countryside and built the city; it is under the Nizams that the capital moved from Golconda to the city of Hyderabad. This is the reason the Telangana people have a stronger claim on Hyderabad than Seemandhra folks.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:23 pm

BTW, the Qutb Shahi map is a snapshot, and does not show only the areas that were part of their kingdom between those two dates. They intermittently fought the Vijayanagara empire for control of coastal Andhra.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:30 pm

Idéfix wrote:BTW, the Qutb Shahi map is a snapshot, and does not show only the areas that were part of their kingdom between those two dates. They intermittently fought the Vijayanagara empire for control of coastal Andhra.

But, while under the control of Qutub Shahi (and under Nizam), SA areas paid their taxes and Hyd was their capital. So, hooch-KCR and kaam-chor Kodandaram are lying when they say that only T contributed to building Hyd.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:38 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Idéfix wrote:BTW, the Qutb Shahi map is a snapshot, and does not show only the areas that were part of their kingdom between those two dates. They intermittently fought the Vijayanagara empire for control of coastal Andhra.
But, while under the control of Qutub Shahi (and under Nizam), SA areas paid their taxes and Hyd was their capital. So, hooch-KCR and kaam-chor Kodandaram are lying when they say that only T contributed to building Hyd.

Correct. But as you said in another thread, it was the Nizams who really built it into a big city. Under their time, Telangana, Marathwada, and Hyderabad-Karnataka bore the brunt of the Nizam's revenue collection (aka looting) machine.

by smArtha Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:24 pm

Idéfix wrote:The history is broadly correct. I mentioned it before here, and it addresses Kakatiya and Vijayanagar empires as well: https://such.forumotion.com/t14598-looks-like-telangana-is-a-certainty#112420

Hyderabad became a large city under the Nizams, because they looted the countryside and built the city; it is under the Nizams that the capital moved from Golconda to the city of Hyderabad. This is the reason the Telangana people have a stronger claim on Hyderabad than Seemandhra folks.

"1823 - c. 1950: Telangana and part of Rayalaseema under Muslim rule (Nizams), part of Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra under Christian rule (British Raj)
c. 1950 - now: All Telugu lands under (at least nominally) secular rule"

From the other thread you quoted, are you implying that the period above is the one that concerns development of Hyderabad as a big Capital city? Wikipedia entry for History of Hyderabad doesn't think so.

Founding of a new city[ltr][edit source | editbeta][/ltr]
Mohammed Quli Qutub Shah of the Qutub Shahi dynasty built the city of Hyderabad on the Musi River five miles (8 km) east of Golconda in 1589. The Purana Pul ("old bridge") spanning the Musi was built a few years earlier, enabling quick travel between Golconda and Hyderabad. Hyderabad was named as the City of Hyder after the title of the Fourth Caliph Ali. Many people though, commonly believe that the city of "Hyderabad" was named after the people as their residence as "City of the Brave" from the Persian words "Hyder/Haider" (Persian and Urdu meaning lion or brave and "Abad/Abaad" (Persian and Urdu meaning abode or populated) after surviving the plaque epidemic that ravaged Golkonda. There is another urban myth and folklore which may be an apocryphal that the Sultan named it after his wife Hyder Mahal (not likely he gave her a male name or title). Lack of space for expansion in Golconda fort city made the Sultan called up his best of advisers to search for a new virgin wooded elevated land site near a river void of any man-made structures or monuments. The city concept was planned on grid-iron pattern reflective of well related precincts with an iconic monument as the main foci. He also ordered the construction of the Char Minar in 1591 a tall structure to oversee the urban development and to keep watch of the river banks flooding the nearby areas causing epidemics of grave nature.
Growth of the new city[ltr][edit source | editbeta][/ltr]
The early history of Hyderabad is inextricably intertwined and fortune rose during the 16th and early 17th centuries, Hyderabad became a center of a vibrant diamond trade. All seven Qutb Shahi sultans were patrons of learning and were great builders. They contributed to the growth and development of Indo-Persianand Indo-Islamic literature and culture in Hyderabad. Some of the sultans were known as patrons of local Telugu culture as well. During the Qutb Shahi reign Golconda became one of the leading markets in the world for diamonds, pearls, steel, arms, and also printed fabric. In the 16th century the city grew to accommodate the surplus population of Golconda and eventually became the capital of the Qutb Shahi rulers. Hyderabad became known for its gardens (called baghs) and its comfortable climate. Visitors from other lands compared the city most to the beautiful city of Isfahan in Iran.

by smArtha Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:34 pm

truthbetold wrote:T backwardness is primarily because of t's feudal culture. Have you seen shyam benegals ankur? That story is repeated few thousands of times in t area.this culture was perpetuated by Nisan 's rule.

How/Why did the feudal culture survive only there and not other areas? I thought the feudal and/or zamindari system survived till the major land reforms were brought in after Independence.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:19 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Idéfix wrote:BTW, the Qutb Shahi map is a snapshot, and does not show only the areas that were part of their kingdom between those two dates. They intermittently fought the Vijayanagara empire for control of coastal Andhra.
But, while under the control of Qutub Shahi (and under Nizam), SA areas paid their taxes and Hyd was their capital. So, hooch-KCR and kaam-chor Kodandaram are lying when they say that only T contributed to building Hyd.
Correct. But as you said in another thread, it was the Nizams who really built it into a big city. Under their time, Telangana, Marathwada, and Hyderabad-Karnataka bore the brunt of the Nizam's revenue collection (aka looting) machine.

Maratwada and Kannda region apparently were not big revenue generating zones at that time. Obviously, the T region bore the brunt of the tax burden. Surprisingly, why are Ts so fond of Nizam if he sucked their blood?

What is disgusting is the way in which KCR and Kodandaram made statements to diminish the role of non-T areas in the capital building and in having Hyderabad as their capital while under the dynasties (however sporadic that might have been). They did pay their share of the taxes. So, Andhrawalon bhago is unnecessary. Unfortunately, that will happen as soon as T is separated. I would be scared to live in Hyd after the separation. My sisters are also worried.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:26 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Surprisingly, why are Ts so fond of Nizam if he sucked their blood?

The people are not fond of the Nizam. They still sing songs about burying him. Telangana landlords did well under the Nizam; their descendants may look back nostalgically at a time when they ruled the roost.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:So, Andhrawalon bhago is unnecessary. Unfortunately, that will happen as soon as T is separated. I would be scared to live in Hyd after the separation. My sisters are also worried.

Andhrawalon bhago is unnecessary and counterproductive to the success of Hyderabad, regardless of history. Telangana is part of India, and all Indians can live there as they please! KCR and his gang need to be put in their place.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:27 pm

smArtha wrote:
truthbetold wrote:T backwardness is primarily because of t's feudal culture. Have you seen shyam benegals ankur? That story is repeated few thousands of times in t area.this culture was perpetuated by Nisan 's rule.
How/Why did the feudal culture survive only there and not other areas? I thought the feudal and/or zamindari system survived till the major land reforms were brought in after Independence.

AFAIK, Madras state had land reform before the separation of Andhra. Hyderabad state did not have that. Also, Telangana had a communist insurgency at liberation; the Indian Army fought the communists in the villages for a couple of years after liberation. In the fight, the government probably needed the support of the landlords, so they might have gone easy on the landlords and their benami dealings.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:34 pm

smArtha wrote:
Idéfix wrote:The history is broadly correct. I mentioned it before here, and it addresses Kakatiya and Vijayanagar empires as well: https://such.forumotion.com/t14598-looks-like-telangana-is-a-certainty#112420

Hyderabad became a large city under the Nizams, because they looted the countryside and built the city; it is under the Nizams that the capital moved from Golconda to the city of Hyderabad. This is the reason the Telangana people have a stronger claim on Hyderabad than Seemandhra folks.
"1823 - c. 1950: Telangana and part of Rayalaseema under Muslim rule (Nizams), part of Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra under Christian rule (British Raj)
c. 1950 - now: All Telugu lands under (at least nominally) secular rule"

From the other thread you quoted, are you implying that the period above is the one that concerns development of Hyderabad as a big Capital city? Wikipedia entry for History of Hyderabad doesn't think so.

Founding of a new city
[ltr][edit source | editbeta][/ltr]

Mohammed Quli Qutub Shah of the Qutub Shahi dynasty built the city of Hyderabad on the Musi River five miles (8 km) east of Golconda in 1589. The Purana Pul ("old bridge") spanning the Musi was built a few years earlier, enabling quick travel between Golconda and Hyderabad. Hyderabad was named as the City of Hyder after the title of the Fourth Caliph Ali. Many people though, commonly believe that the city of "Hyderabad" was named after the people as their residence as "City of the Brave" from the Persian words "Hyder/Haider" (Persian and Urdu meaning lion or brave and "Abad/Abaad" (Persian and Urdu meaning abode or populated) after surviving the plaque epidemic that ravaged Golkonda. There is another urban myth and folklore which may be an apocryphal that the Sultan named it after his wife Hyder Mahal (not likely he gave her a male name or title). Lack of space for expansion in Golconda fort city made the Sultan called up his best of advisers to search for a new virgin wooded elevated land site near a river void of any man-made structures or monuments. The city concept was planned on grid-iron pattern reflective of well related precincts with an iconic monument as the main foci. He also ordered the construction of the Char Minar in 1591 a tall structure to oversee the urban development and to keep watch of the river banks flooding the nearby areas causing epidemics of grave nature.
Growth of the new city
[ltr][edit source | editbeta][/ltr]

The early history of Hyderabad is inextricably intertwined and fortune rose during the 16th and early 17th centuries, Hyderabad became a center of a vibrant diamond trade. All seven Qutb Shahi sultans were patrons of learning and were great builders. They contributed to the growth and development of Indo-Persianand Indo-Islamic literature and culture in Hyderabad. Some of the sultans were known as patrons of local Telugu culture as well. During the Qutb Shahi reign Golconda became one of the leading markets in the world for diamonds, pearls, steel, arms, and also printed fabric. In the 16th century the city grew to accommodate the surplus population of Golconda and eventually became the capital of the Qutb Shahi rulers. Hyderabad became known for its gardens (called baghs) and its comfortable climate. Visitors from other lands compared the city most to the beautiful city of Isfahan in Iran.

Yes, Hyderabad became one of India's largest cities in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Qutb Shahi times, Golconda was the capital, and the city was just the undefended, "outside the fort walls" area that was close to water supply. The city lost its prominence when Aurangzeb conquered Golconda, and it was a minor city. cross India, it was not even known as "the" city by the name Hyderabad; it was styled Hyderabad-Deccan to distinguish it from the city in Sindh. It was after the establishment of Secunderabad as a cantonment that the new city developed; prior to that, just the old city was occupied. Most of the urban infrastructure of Hyderabad -- water, flood control, sewerage, roads, railway lines, etc. were built in the first half of the 20th century. During Aurangzeb's seige, he camped on the outside of the city at Lal Bahadur Stadium (aka Fateh Maidan or Victory Field). By independence, Fateh Maidan was at the center of the city, with the king's residence within walking distance.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:53 pm

BTW, guruvu gaaru, it is interesting to see you claim in one thread that the hold of the Qutb Shahis was not strong on coastal Andhra when talking about Muslim influence, and argue here that coastal Andhra was ruled by Qutb Shahis like Telangana when talking about claims to Hyderabad.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:58 pm

Idéfix wrote:BTW, guruvu gaaru, it is interesting to see you claim in one thread that the hold of the Qutb Shahis was not strong on coastal Andhra when talking about Muslim influence, and argue here that coastal Andhra was ruled by Qutb Shahis like Telangana when talking about claims to Hyderabad.

Nothing wrong with that. SA still paid taxes to Qutub Shahis (and Nizam) while under their control and had Hyd-Golkonda as their capital. T politicians can't ignore the facts. You write that T people wrote uncomplimentary songs about Nizam but love Hyd (and the revenue it generates, he he he). Kosta fellows didn't write any such stuff about Nizam or Golconda sultans and they still love Hyd deeply (and they were happy to sell their properties in Kosta and put all their money into it).

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:09 pm

Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Idéfix wrote:The history is broadly correct. I mentioned it before here, and it addresses Kakatiya and Vijayanagar empires as well: https://such.forumotion.com/t14598-looks-like-telangana-is-a-certainty#112420

Hyderabad became a large city under the Nizams, because they looted the countryside and built the city; it is under the Nizams that the capital moved from Golconda to the city of Hyderabad. This is the reason the Telangana people have a stronger claim on Hyderabad than Seemandhra folks.
"1823 - c. 1950: Telangana and part of Rayalaseema under Muslim rule (Nizams), part of Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra under Christian rule (British Raj)
c. 1950 - now: All Telugu lands under (at least nominally) secular rule"

From the other thread you quoted, are you implying that the period above is the one that concerns development of Hyderabad as a big Capital city? Wikipedia entry for History of Hyderabad doesn't think so.

Founding of a new city
[ltr][edit source | editbeta][/ltr]

Mohammed Quli Qutub Shah of the Qutub Shahi dynasty built the city of Hyderabad on the Musi River five miles (8 km) east of Golconda in 1589. The Purana Pul ("old bridge") spanning the Musi was built a few years earlier, enabling quick travel between Golconda and Hyderabad. Hyderabad was named as the City of Hyder after the title of the Fourth Caliph Ali. Many people though, commonly believe that the city of "Hyderabad" was named after the people as their residence as "City of the Brave" from the Persian words "Hyder/Haider" (Persian and Urdu meaning lion or brave and "Abad/Abaad" (Persian and Urdu meaning abode or populated) after surviving the plaque epidemic that ravaged Golkonda. There is another urban myth and folklore which may be an apocryphal that the Sultan named it after his wife Hyder Mahal (not likely he gave her a male name or title). Lack of space for expansion in Golconda fort city made the Sultan called up his best of advisers to search for a new virgin wooded elevated land site near a river void of any man-made structures or monuments. The city concept was planned on grid-iron pattern reflective of well related precincts with an iconic monument as the main foci. He also ordered the construction of the Char Minar in 1591 a tall structure to oversee the urban development and to keep watch of the river banks flooding the nearby areas causing epidemics of grave nature.
Growth of the new city
[ltr][edit source | editbeta][/ltr]

The early history of Hyderabad is inextricably intertwined and fortune rose during the 16th and early 17th centuries, Hyderabad became a center of a vibrant diamond trade. All seven Qutb Shahi sultans were patrons of learning and were great builders. They contributed to the growth and development of Indo-Persianand Indo-Islamic literature and culture in Hyderabad. Some of the sultans were known as patrons of local Telugu culture as well. During the Qutb Shahi reign Golconda became one of the leading markets in the world for diamonds, pearls, steel, arms, and also printed fabric. In the 16th century the city grew to accommodate the surplus population of Golconda and eventually became the capital of the Qutb Shahi rulers. Hyderabad became known for its gardens (called baghs) and its comfortable climate. Visitors from other lands compared the city most to the beautiful city of Isfahan in Iran.
Yes, Hyderabad became one of India's largest cities in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Qutb Shahi times, Golconda was the capital, and the city was just the undefended, "outside the fort walls" area that was close to water supply. The city lost its prominence when Aurangzeb conquered Golconda, and it was a minor city. cross India, it was not even known as "the" city by the name Hyderabad; it was styled Hyderabad-Deccan to distinguish it from the city in Sindh. It was after the establishment of Secunderabad as a cantonment that the new city developed; prior to that, just the old city was occupied. Most of the urban infrastructure of Hyderabad -- water, flood control, sewerage, roads, railway lines, etc. were built in the first half of the 20th century. During Aurangzeb's seige, he camped on the outside of the city at Lal Bahadur Stadium (aka Fateh Maidan or Victory Field). By independence, Fateh Maidan was at the center of the city, with the king's residence within walking distance.

Isn't that true of most cities in India? There is no need to separate Golkonda from Hyderabad and Secunderabad. SA paid taxes to Qutub Shahis and Nizam while Golkonda-Hyderabad-Fateh maidan-King Koti, whatever, was the capital. Golkonda dynastry didn't just live like nomads. They built Charminar, etc. So, SA money did go into building stuff there. So, they have as much right to claim Hyd as Ts have. SA wants to hug it together with T but KCR and gang want to exclusively pocket the golden eggs the goose lays.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:17 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Isn't that true of most cities in India? There is no need to separate Golkonda from Hyderabad and Secunderabad. SA paid taxes to Qutub Shahis and Nizam while Golkonda-Hyderabad-Fateh maidan-King Koti, whatever, was the capital. Golkonda dynastry didn't just live like nomads. They built Charminar, etc. So, SA money did go into building stuff there.

So far so good.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:So, they have as much right to claim Hyd as Ts have.

This is what doesn't make sense. SA has certainly contributed to Hyderabad, and KCR is distorting history when he denies that contribution. But you are distorting history when you equate SA contribution to that of Telangana! Telangana has been paying taxes for Hyderabad throughout the history of the city; SA did that for about half of that time, and at the time the big investments in urban infrastructure were made in the early 20th century, SA was contributing to the building of such infrastructure in Madras, not Hyderabad.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Isn't that true of most cities in India? There is no need to separate Golkonda from Hyderabad and Secunderabad. SA paid taxes to Qutub Shahis and Nizam while Golkonda-Hyderabad-Fateh maidan-King Koti, whatever, was the capital. Golkonda dynastry didn't just live like nomads. They built Charminar, etc. So, SA money did go into building stuff there.
So far so good.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:So, they have as much right to claim Hyd as Ts have.
This is what doesn't make sense. SA has certainly contributed to Hyderabad, and KCR is distorting history when he denies that contribution. But you are distorting history when you equate SA contribution to that of Telangana! Telangana has been paying taxes for Hyderabad throughout the history of the city; SA did that for about half of that time, and at the time the big investments in urban infrastructure were made in the early 20th century, SA was contributing to the building of such infrastructure in Madras, not Hyderabad.

The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth. My father told me that Hyd (Imlibun) bus station looked awfully quiet without the traffic flowing to SeemAndhra regions; makes sense 'T' region probably accounts for 1/3rd of daily traffic, about 50% of floating traffic must be from/to Vijayawada.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:52 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Isn't that true of most cities in India? There is no need to separate Golkonda from Hyderabad and Secunderabad. SA paid taxes to Qutub Shahis and Nizam while Golkonda-Hyderabad-Fateh maidan-King Koti, whatever, was the capital. Golkonda dynastry didn't just live like nomads. They built Charminar, etc. So, SA money did go into building stuff there.
So far so good.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:So, they have as much right to claim Hyd as Ts have.
This is what doesn't make sense. SA has certainly contributed to Hyderabad, and KCR is distorting history when he denies that contribution. But you are distorting history when you equate SA contribution to that of Telangana! Telangana has been paying taxes for Hyderabad throughout the history of the city; SA did that for about half of that time, and at the time the big investments in urban infrastructure were made in the early 20th century, SA was contributing to the building of such infrastructure in Madras, not Hyderabad.
The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth. My father told me that Hyd (Imlibun) bus station looked awfully quiet without the traffic flowing to SeemAndhra regions; makes sense 'T' region probably accounts for 1/3rd of daily traffic, about 50% of floating traffic must be from/to Vijayawada.

this is exactly why no-quarter given approach is the only proven response to separatist nonsense. you give them an inch they'll want a foot and soon they dont want you to have a foothold and deny your role. this entire situation lies at the feet of the leaders from SA and seema over the past 20yrs that played inept politics and let the separation play into the hands of KCR and his uh, well meaning and reasonable friends. KCR didnt have a word to say once YSR became PM after 2004. wonder what kinda backroom dealings they had which were invalidated once YSR was dead. I think the agreement was to dislodge naidu and then give a KCR a big role in the govt which YSR didnt honor but at same time he must have had something incriminating to keep him inline..

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:59 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth.

Yes, it has grown a lot in the last sixty years, as have other cities in India. As I showed earlier with data, Hyderabad maintained its place as the fifth largest city in India through that growth spurt. The cities of Seemandhra grew faster than Hyderabad during the same time.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:01 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:this is exactly why no-quarter given approach is the only proven response to separatist nonsense. you give them an inch they'll want a foot and soon they dont want you to have a foothold and deny your role. this entire situation lies at the feet of the leaders from SA and seema over the past 20yrs that played inept politics and let the separation play into the hands of KCR and his uh, well meaning and reasonable friends. KCR didnt have a word to say once YSR became PM after 2004. wonder what kinda backroom dealings they had which were invalidated once YSR was dead. I think the agreement was to dislodge naidu and then give a KCR a big role in the govt which YSR didnt honor but at same time he must have had something incriminating to keep him inline..

While you are right on the politics that led up to this, at this point bifurcation is not something that SA politicians have to "give" to Telangana, because they don't own the state. Neither is Hyderabad.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:06 pm

Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth.
Yes, it has grown a lot in the last sixty years, as have other cities in India. As I showed earlier with data, Hyderabad maintained its place as the fifth largest city in India through that growth spurt. The cities of Seemandhra grew faster than Hyderabad during the same time.

Irrespective of Seemandhra cities status, do you think Hyderabad would've seen similar growth by just being capital of 'T' state for the last 60 years! I doubt it very much.

by smArtha Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:08 pm

Idéfix wrote:Yes, Hyderabad became one of India's largest cities in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Qutb Shahi times, Golconda was the capital, and the city was just the undefended, "outside the fort walls" area that was close to water supply. The city lost its prominence when Aurangzeb conquered Golconda, and it was a minor city. cross India, it was not even known as "the" city by the name Hyderabad; it was styled Hyderabad-Deccan to distinguish it from the city in Sindh. It was after the establishment of Secunderabad as a cantonment that the new city developed; prior to that, just the old city was occupied. Most of the urban infrastructure of Hyderabad -- water, flood control, sewerage, roads, railway lines, etc. were built in the first half of the 20th century. During Aurangzeb's seige, he camped on the outside of the city at Lal Bahadur Stadium (aka Fateh Maidan or Victory Field). By independence, Fateh Maidan was at the center of the city, with the king's residence within walking distance.

"The British stationed aResident at Hyderabad and their own troops at Secunderabad, but the state continued to be ruled by the Nizam. Maintenance of British forces, which was part of subsidiary alliance with British, has put heavy burden on Hyderabad state and bankrupted it in early 19th century.^[5] Hyderabad, under the Nizams, was the largest princely state in India, with an area larger than England, Scotland and Wales combined. It was considered the "senior-most" princely-state, and within the elaborate protocols of the Raj, its ruler the Nizam was accorded a 21-gun salute. Development of modern facilities and industrialization in Hyderabad city started in late 19th century.^[6] The State had its own currency, mint, railways, and postal system. There was no income tax. The Nizam amassed a lot of wealth.

Wiki snippet above implies- from the early 19th century to the late 19th century - Hyderabad state went from a near bankruptcy to fully developed with modern facilities and industrialization and that too with no income tax? How did this turn around come about and if the tax money didn't fund it who funded it? The British?

PS: I may have mentioned this earlier, but I don't buy any 'naturally ours claim' based on 'select snapshot of history'. Division is sensible based on current realities and Hyderabad can be in T-state or Independent based on geographic and other current realities. The generations that contributed to Hyderabad's development are still alive and so they are entitled to the proportional claims. Those that contributed to Hyderabad in early 20th century are probably gone now and no point making this division even more complicated factoring the share of ancestors.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:12 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:this is exactly why no-quarter given approach is the only proven response to separatist nonsense. you give them an inch they'll want a foot and soon they dont want you to have a foothold and deny your role. this entire situation lies at the feet of the leaders from SA and seema over the past 20yrs that played inept politics and let the separation play into the hands of KCR and his uh, well meaning and reasonable friends. KCR didnt have a word to say once YSR became PM after 2004. wonder what kinda backroom dealings they had which were invalidated once YSR was dead. I think the agreement was to dislodge naidu and then give a KCR a big role in the govt which YSR didnt honor but at same time he must have had something incriminating to keep him inline..
While you are right on the politics that led up to this, at this point bifurcation is not something that SA politicians have to "give" to Telangana, because they don't own the state. Neither is Hyderabad.

they "gave" it to the separatist gang by tolerating their very existence. there was never a popular movement until KCR dora and his band of merry douchebag intelligentia from local univs played up to the resentments of ppl like the cheap demagogue that they are, with active support from scam reddy who was indulging in realpolitick. like I said, you give someone an inch and they'll want the head very soon, yours included.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:15 pm

what's idefix is peddling here is the same nonsense peddled by muslims in and around hyd when trying to blackmail ppl buying property. they'll lay claim saying they have a document from 1700s from the nizam saying it was granted to them and will want to be paid off. it's practically a cottage industry in hyd and surrounding districts

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:16 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:[
this is exactly why no-quarter given approach is the only proven response to separatist nonsense. you give them an inch they'll want a foot and soon they dont want you to have a foothold and deny your role. this entire situation lies at the feet of the leaders from SA and seema over the past 20yrs that played inept politics and let the separation play into the hands of KCR and his uh, well meaning and reasonable friends. KCR didnt have a word to say once YSR became PM after 2004. wonder what kinda backroom dealings they had which were invalidated once YSR was dead. I think the agreement was to dislodge naidu and then give a KCR a big role in the govt which YSR didnt honor but at same time he must have had something incriminating to keep him inline..

Rumor was that Harish Rao was in talks with YSR and was about join Congress party, it fell apart when YSR died. This has resurfaced in the last month or so i.e. after the announcement.

by truthbetold Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:24 pm

Seemandhra paid nizam even during late 19th and early 20th century through british payments for circar and seema .
The t claim is strong because hyd is in t area. if building the city is the criteria it will be a messy separation.
seemandhra people have a legitimate complaint. they have been suckered into putting in mind and material to build a city and after 60 years they were told they have no rights to the future revenue based on geography.
Seemandhra deserves 50% revenue for 25 years from hyd .
what say ide ?

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:30 pm

smArtha wrote:Wiki snippet above implies- from the early 19th century to the late 19th century - Hyderabad state went from a near bankruptcy to fully developed with modern facilities and industrialization and that too with no income tax? How did this turn around come about and if the tax money didn't fund it who funded it? The British?

The tax system under the Nizam was very different from what it is now. It was not a modern income tax, but the traditional zamindari tax system where most of the land is owned by the zamindars and they collect rents/taxes; they keep part of that and send the rest to the Nizam. Another form of tax was veTTi, where tenant farmers needed to work for the landlord for free. The Nizam also personally owned a sizable fraction of the state lands -- he enjoyed not only all rents from those lands, but also the veTTi and the profits from agriculture in those lands. If you are interested in the revenue system of the time, look up Puchalapalli Sundarayya's book on the Telangana armed struggle. He describes the heavy tax burden on the population of Telangana. I alluded to it in this thread: https://such.forumotion.com/t5819-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#46098

by smArtha Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:31 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:what's idefix is peddling here is the same nonsense peddled by muslims in and around hyd when trying to blackmail ppl buying property. they'll lay claim saying they have a document from 1700s from the nizam saying it was granted to them and will want to be paid off. it's practically a cottage industry in hyd and surrounding districts

I did read about such cases. It amazes be how the government or courts are willing to assign higher validity to an arbitrary point or snapshot in history over others. For a country that has at the least over 10k years of 'civilizational' history, claims based on history need a well thought out framework for resolution.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:33 pm

truthbetold wrote:Seemandhra paid nizam even during late 19th and early 20th century through british payments for circar and seema .
The t claim is strong because hyd is in t area. if building the city is the criteria it will be a messy separation.
seemandhra people have a legitimate complaint. they have been suckered into putting in mind and material to build a city and after 60 years they were told they have no rights to the future revenue based on geography.
Seemandhra deserves 50% revenue for 25 years from hyd .
what say ide ?

I think the revenue sharing should be tapered down on a straight line over the 10 year interim period. This will allow both states to adjust to the transition steadily. I am open to arguments for extending it beyond the interim period, but I don't see them myself.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:33 pm

smArtha wrote:
Wiki snippet above implies- from the early 19th century to the late 19th century - Hyderabad state went from a near bankruptcy to fully developed with modern facilities and industrialization and that too with no income tax? How did this turn around come about and if the tax money didn't fund it who funded it? The British?

May be ~~Allah~~ Lord Rama appeared in Nizam's dream and told him of the hidden treasure after all the precedent was set a few centuries earlier.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:36 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:what's idefix is peddling here is the same nonsense peddled by muslims in and around hyd when trying to blackmail ppl buying property. they'll lay claim saying they have a document from 1700s from the nizam saying it was granted to them and will want to be paid off. it's practically a cottage industry in hyd and surrounding districts

And dharmam walks on all its four legs once it cross the border over into Seemandhra! There is no land mafia, no worries about bogus claims to ownership, and people don't know how to bite if you put your finger in their mouths.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:38 pm

smArtha wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what's idefix is peddling here is the same nonsense peddled by muslims in and around hyd when trying to blackmail ppl buying property. they'll lay claim saying they have a document from 1700s from the nizam saying it was granted to them and will want to be paid off. it's practically a cottage industry in hyd and surrounding districts
I did read about such cases. It amazes be how the government or courts are willing to assign higher validity to an arbitrary point or snapshot in history over others. For a country that has at the least over 10k years of 'civilizational' history, claims based on history need a well thought out framework for resolution.

I don't think any of these discussions on history amount to much at all in terms of actual resolution. These are good for people like us to argue over. It is not history but the present and the future that will determine the actual outcome. The fact is, SA people are present in Hyderabad in large numbers, and they are crucial to the future of the city. I am not one to make arguments that SA people did not contribute to Hyderabad; I also won't stand idly by when SA people minimize the role of Telangana and claim that they built Hyderabad mostly by themselves.

by Idéfix Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:43 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth.
Yes, it has grown a lot in the last sixty years, as have other cities in India. As I showed earlier with data, Hyderabad maintained its place as the fifth largest city in India through that growth spurt. The cities of Seemandhra grew faster than Hyderabad during the same time.
Irrespective of Seemandhra cities status, do you think Hyderabad would've seen similar growth by just being capital of 'T' state for the last 60 years! I doubt it very much.

This is a hypothetical and the best we can do is guess. I think Seemandhra people would have moved to Hyderabad in large numbers even if Hyderabad state did not merge with Andhra in 1956. That is because Hyderabad was an order of magnitude larger than Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam in 1955. People gravitate towards opportunity, and large cities are magnets for business and people moving from villages and towns to a more urban lifestyle. This is why all large cities of India have grown by leaps and bounds in the last sixty years. Hyderabad would have grown like other large cities in India have grown.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:45 pm

Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:Wiki snippet above implies- from the early 19th century to the late 19th century - Hyderabad state went from a near bankruptcy to fully developed with modern facilities and industrialization and that too with no income tax? How did this turn around come about and if the tax money didn't fund it who funded it? The British?
The tax system under the Nizam was very different from what it is now. It was not a modern income tax, but the traditional zamindari tax system where most of the land is owned by the zamindars and they collect rents/taxes; they keep part of that and send the rest to the Nizam. Another form of tax was veTTi, where tenant farmers needed to work for the landlord for free. The Nizam also personally owned a sizable fraction of the state lands -- he enjoyed not only all rents from those lands, but also the veTTi and the profits from agriculture in those lands. If you are interested in the revenue system of the time, look up Puchalapalli Sundarayya's book on the Telangana armed struggle. He describes the heavy tax burden on the population of Telangana. I alluded to it in this thread: https://such.forumotion.com/t5819-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#46098

I don't think that is unique to Hyd state, Zamindars all over the India practiced the same rules.

by confuzzled dude Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:48 pm

Idéfix wrote:
This is a hypothetical and the best we can do is guess. I think Seemandhra people would have moved to Hyderabad in large numbers even if Hyderabad state did not merge with Andhra in 1956. That is because Hyderabad was an order of magnitude larger than Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam in 1955. People gravitate towards opportunity, and large cities are magnets for business and people moving from villages and towns to a more urban lifestyle. This is why all large cities of India have grown by leaps and bounds in the last sixty years. Hyderabad would have grown like other large cities in India have grown.

If that was the case Telugu population in Chennai wouldn't have dwindled over the years.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:58 pm

Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth.
Yes, it has grown a lot in the last sixty years, as have other cities in India. As I showed earlier with data, Hyderabad maintained its place as the fifth largest city in India through that growth spurt. The cities of Seemandhra grew faster than Hyderabad during the same time.
Irrespective of Seemandhra cities status, do you think Hyderabad would've seen similar growth by just being capital of 'T' state for the last 60 years! I doubt it very much.
This is a hypothetical and the best we can do is guess. I think Seemandhra people would have moved to Hyderabad in large numbers even if Hyderabad state did not merge with Andhra in 1956. That is because Hyderabad was an order of magnitude larger than Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam in 1955. People gravitate towards opportunity, and large cities are magnets for business and people moving from villages and towns to a more urban lifestyle. This is why all large cities of India have grown by leaps and bounds in the last sixty years. Hyderabad would have grown like other large cities in India have grown.

In the 50's and 60's, Vizag was more popular than Hyd for Kosta people. Real estate prices in Vizag were also higher. Bangalore was a popular destination as well.

by confuzzled dude Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:29 pm

Is this Hyderabad History? Andhra%20Buses%20not%20running

Deserted bus depot in Hyderabad during a strike on Tuesday by the United Andhra activists in protest against bifurcation of the State.

by b_A Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:37 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:The city probably has grown at least 3-fold in the last sixty years, without contributions from Seemandhra folks & with competition from neighboring Seemandhra state, Hyd would not have enjoyed as much growth.
Yes, it has grown a lot in the last sixty years, as have other cities in India. As I showed earlier with data, Hyderabad maintained its place as the fifth largest city in India through that growth spurt. The cities of Seemandhra grew faster than Hyderabad during the same time.
Irrespective of Seemandhra cities status, do you think Hyderabad would've seen similar growth by just being capital of 'T' state for the last 60 years! I doubt it very much.
This is a hypothetical and the best we can do is guess. I think Seemandhra people would have moved to Hyderabad in large numbers even if Hyderabad state did not merge with Andhra in 1956. That is because Hyderabad was an order of magnitude larger than Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam in 1955. People gravitate towards opportunity, and large cities are magnets for business and people moving from villages and towns to a more urban lifestyle. This is why all large cities of India have grown by leaps and bounds in the last sixty years. Hyderabad would have grown like other large cities in India have grown.
In the 50's and 60's, Vizag was more popular than Hyd for Kosta people. Real estate prices in Vizag were also higher. Bangalore was a popular destination as well.

In the late 70s , we lived in Hyd for a couple of years before my father was transferred to Vizag. During that time , Hyderabadis were feeling "namoshi" to speak in telugu. In one of the school cricket match , a classmate advised me not to speak in telugu as people may think that I don't know hindi. Auto drivers to vegetable vendors used to speak only hindi/urdu/hyderabadi . I think NTR becoming CM brought a sea change in H'bad and telugu usage. When I visited H'bad in late 80's I could see a tremendous change in attitude towards telugu and the auto driver barometer was moving firmly towards telugu as more people from kosta started migrating. By 90's, it became a deluge.

by truthbetold Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:59 pm

B-a,
Ntr helped but a more significant event was 6 point formula in 1972 by indira govt. the mulki r
ule was changed to a 4 year residency rule. that allowed large number of andhras to move to their own state capital.

by smArtha Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:24 pm

Reading about all the history and with hindsight, if the state was split as a result of the T/A-movements of the 60s and 70s it would have worked better for all sides. Was claims over Hyderabad this strong during that time?

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:44 pm

smArtha wrote:Reading about all the history and with hindsight, if the state was split as a result of the T/A-movements of the 60s and 70s it would have worked better for all sides. Was claims over Hyderabad this strong during that time?

Of course, it was all about Mulki rules.

by b_A Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:52 pm

truthbetold wrote:B-a,
Ntr helped but a more significant event was 6 point formula in 1972 by indira govt. the mulki r
ule was changed to a 4 year residency rule. that allowed large number of andhras to move to their own state capital.

The mulki rules are only for the government employment, right ?
I think a lot of people joined in private sector jobs and lots of business people also moved in 80's and 90's.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:55 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what's idefix is peddling here is the same nonsense peddled by muslims in and around hyd when trying to blackmail ppl buying property. they'll lay claim saying they have a document from 1700s from the nizam saying it was granted to them and will want to be paid off. it's practically a cottage industry in hyd and surrounding districts
And dharmam walks on all its four legs once it cross the border over into Seemandhra! There is no land mafia, no worries about bogus claims to ownership, and people don't know how to bite if you put your finger in their mouths.

I think you're an idealist with very little sense of ground reality and would like to will away data points contrary to your positions either with hypothetical parallels to other situations or with gross generalizations. no, land kabza is extremely rare outside of telangana in rest of andhra. even in the rough districts of kadapa, anantapur and cuddapah. it's fairly common in telangana districts surrounding hyd due to the nizam hangover and in rest of districts in telangana due to the agency act issues.

by b_A Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:58 pm

smArtha wrote:Reading about all the history and with hindsight, if the state was split as a result of the T/A-movements of the 60s and 70s it would have worked better for all sides. Was claims over Hyderabad this strong during that time?

There was "jai andhra" movement in 70's when Andhrites wanted a separate state. If they got that then , both the regions would've been developed equally by now. But Indira Gandhi didn't allow that. After that Hyderbad and Telangana were favored by all the CM's starting with NTR.

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:58 pm

b_A wrote:
truthbetold wrote:B-a,
Ntr helped but a more significant event was 6 point formula in 1972 by indira govt. the mulki r
ule was changed to a 4 year residency rule. that allowed large number of andhras to move to their own state capital.
The mulki rules are only for the government employment, right ?
I think a lot of people joined in private sector jobs and lots of business people also moved in 80's and 90's.

Under NTR we got no new industries, as he was swimming against the tide. I agree with TBT, Jai Andhra movement opened the doors for every one.

by smArtha Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:02 pm

b_A wrote:After that Hyderbad and Telangana were favored by all the CM's starting with NTR.

I don't think Telangana was favored. If so, we'd not have been in this mess now. Hyderabad was favored because of it being the capital city.

by Idéfix Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:I think you're an idealist with very little sense of ground reality and would like to will away data points contrary to your positions either with hypothetical parallels to other situations or with gross generalizations. no, land kabza is extremely rare outside of telangana in rest of andhra. even in the rough districts of kadapa, anantapur and cuddapah. it's fairly common in telangana districts surrounding hyd due to the nizam hangover and in rest of districts in telangana due to the agency act issues.

Hahaha. So much for your sense of ground reality:

by Sponsored content