The main feature of Telangana agitation is that it is based on reasons other than language.
Should it be considered?
In 1956, states were organised on the basis of linguistic lines. Visalandhra became a reality thanks to supreme sacrifices made by people like Pottu Sriramulu. It consisted of Coastal Andhra, Telangana and Rayalseema. Telangana being the poorest of the three was already tottering under the long misrule of the Nizams. After all these years, there have been accusations that the region continues to be neglected, maybe purposefully or unintentionally.
There has been a genuine demand for the state since AP’s inception. It reached its crescendo during 1969.However status quo was reached by satiating the political ambitions of Telangana politicians.
The main aspect is the social response from Telangana. Here, they centre mainly on
1. Access to quality higher education in Hyderabad, where students from other regions tend to dominate due to better primary education in their parts.
2. Government jobs .It is people from Andhra who secure most of the posts in APPSC.
3. High real estate prices and business competition due to investment by people from relatively prosperous Andhra.
Most people think this is a golden opportunity to have a state of their own. Hence separate state agitation received popular support across the districts of Telangana. I can say that this is more of an emotional demand nurtured over the years.
But my question is ‘WHY WAS IT ALLOWED TO PERSIST FOR SO LONG?’
Let us consider the examples of other states which came into existence under similar circumstances in 2000.
1. Jharkhand – State was created solely due to popular movement by the tribes, who even descended to the streets of state capital with the bows and arrows protesting the exploitation meted out to them by the northern districts.
Today, sadly the state continues to be poor and in the brink of disaster, thanks to the likes of Kodas who continue to siphon of the rich mineral resources to outsiders.
2. Chhattisgarh- Carved due to similar protests of non equitable development.
Today, an epitome of mismanagement, there is strong chance of Indian Union losing it to Naxals.
3. Uttaranchal- A state carved due to separate identity of culture and traditions.
Today- Studies have shown that this region had done well when it was a part of the bigger state.GDP is continually decreasing year by year.
However, some of the states like Haryana and Himachal Pradesh seem to have done well after division from parent states. But the catch is that they have taken thirty to forty years to do so.
Some of the smaller states are performing badly, whereas some of the bigger states have fared really well. So the ill founded notion that smaller states will be administered well has no ground.
Also a demand for the state of Coorg (Karnataka), which is roughly the size of Bangalore, is a mockery of our constitution. The centre must step in and somewhere LINE MUST BE DRAWN.
According to me, in the case of Telangana,
1. The people and separatist leaders must fight for the strategy and model of development of the region. The centre must reciprocate by announcing massive aid and development to the region of Telangana.
2. Equitable distribution of resources and development works must be carried out across the country. But emphasis must be made to make sure that the region where the resources are found is suitably benefited.
3. Separatist movements must be nipped in the bud.
Already Telangana is most naxal infested region and the poorest of the regions in AP. If tomorrow, Telangana is created, it is the bureaucrats and politicians who will be benefited. People, I am afraid will be the sufferers.
Should it be considered?
In 1956, states were organised on the basis of linguistic lines. Visalandhra became a reality thanks to supreme sacrifices made by people like Pottu Sriramulu. It consisted of Coastal Andhra, Telangana and Rayalseema. Telangana being the poorest of the three was already tottering under the long misrule of the Nizams. After all these years, there have been accusations that the region continues to be neglected, maybe purposefully or unintentionally.
There has been a genuine demand for the state since AP’s inception. It reached its crescendo during 1969.However status quo was reached by satiating the political ambitions of Telangana politicians.
The main aspect is the social response from Telangana. Here, they centre mainly on
1. Access to quality higher education in Hyderabad, where students from other regions tend to dominate due to better primary education in their parts.
2. Government jobs .It is people from Andhra who secure most of the posts in APPSC.
3. High real estate prices and business competition due to investment by people from relatively prosperous Andhra.
Most people think this is a golden opportunity to have a state of their own. Hence separate state agitation received popular support across the districts of Telangana. I can say that this is more of an emotional demand nurtured over the years.
But my question is ‘WHY WAS IT ALLOWED TO PERSIST FOR SO LONG?’
Let us consider the examples of other states which came into existence under similar circumstances in 2000.
1. Jharkhand – State was created solely due to popular movement by the tribes, who even descended to the streets of state capital with the bows and arrows protesting the exploitation meted out to them by the northern districts.
Today, sadly the state continues to be poor and in the brink of disaster, thanks to the likes of Kodas who continue to siphon of the rich mineral resources to outsiders.
2. Chhattisgarh- Carved due to similar protests of non equitable development.
Today, an epitome of mismanagement, there is strong chance of Indian Union losing it to Naxals.
3. Uttaranchal- A state carved due to separate identity of culture and traditions.
Today- Studies have shown that this region had done well when it was a part of the bigger state.GDP is continually decreasing year by year.
However, some of the states like Haryana and Himachal Pradesh seem to have done well after division from parent states. But the catch is that they have taken thirty to forty years to do so.
Some of the smaller states are performing badly, whereas some of the bigger states have fared really well. So the ill founded notion that smaller states will be administered well has no ground.
Also a demand for the state of Coorg (Karnataka), which is roughly the size of Bangalore, is a mockery of our constitution. The centre must step in and somewhere LINE MUST BE DRAWN.
According to me, in the case of Telangana,
1. The people and separatist leaders must fight for the strategy and model of development of the region. The centre must reciprocate by announcing massive aid and development to the region of Telangana.
2. Equitable distribution of resources and development works must be carried out across the country. But emphasis must be made to make sure that the region where the resources are found is suitably benefited.
3. Separatist movements must be nipped in the bud.
Already Telangana is most naxal infested region and the poorest of the regions in AP. If tomorrow, Telangana is created, it is the bureaucrats and politicians who will be benefited. People, I am afraid will be the sufferers.
