Registration : Open Test by ForumIAS – May 24 | Online + Offline FEW DAYS BEFORE THE PRELIMS by CSE Rank 373 : SURYAWANSHI MAYUR
Online/Offline Batch Enrollment For Focussed Foundation Program 2019 (limited seats available)
Click Here :- Details | Register | Download Brochure
Unacademy Plus - Live Classes by India’s Best Educators
Seats going fast for all UPSC CSE Prelim's 18 courses. Click on the below link for details -

(1) Last Lap Current Affairs for Prelims 2018           (2) Science and Technology for Mains 2018 & Prelims 2019
(3) Comprehensive module for Ancient, Medieval, Modern History - Pre+Mains    (4) Concepts + latest developments in Environment/Ecology (Pre & Mains)
(5) Class 6-12 NCERT Summary for all the Subjects -Mains 18 & Prelims 19     (6) Important Topics for Mains GS Paper 2 and 3
Learn from India’s Best Educators. Limited Seats! Register now

Telengana- Was it really needed?

edited July 2013 in Current Affairs
I've started another thread on Telengana because i feel that the other thread has taken a wrong course.

I'm not from Andhra and i do not know what the ground realities are. What i do know is that this is another blow to the unity of the nation. On what basis is this state being formed?Were the recommendations of the Justice Krishna committee adhered to or is it just for political gains? How many more statehood demands will prop up after this? Is it economically feasible to form Telengana? What about the future of Hyderabad?

Please share your views
«13

Comments

  • Mission 2018 - Final assault
  • edited July 2013
    On what basis is this state being formed?

    several reasons for the demand

    Historic- telangana was part of nizam state of hyderabad. while andhra was part of madras presidency under british control

    Economic- Coastal andhra region was more developed than telangana even before merger of two. This difference has widened in last decades causing disenchantment among people in telangana region

    Political- Following protests in 1960s and 70s , indira gandhi and state leaders signed a gentleman's agreement which assured share in power with telangana. but this agreement was never implemented. most of andhra CMs since then have been from coastal andhra region.

    apart from all these, lack of strong leadership at state is immediate cause for the current situation. Till 2009, there were no major agitations . It was only after untimely demise of the then CM that the telangana political parties took advantage of political vacuum and upped the tempo of movement

    Were the recommendations of the Justice Krishna committee adhered to or is it just for political gains?

    Sri Krishna commission gave six options which included bifurcation of state. But it suggested the most preferred way forward was to setup a regional board for telangana within the united state to deal with regional inequality effectively

    How many more statehood demands will prop up after this?

    there are already many demands. right way forward would have been to setup a state reorganization committee to consider all these demands on rational basis and decide accordingly

    here are a few demands for seperate states



    1. Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir)
    2. Maru Pradesh (Rajasthan)
    3. Harit Pradesh/Paschim Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh)
    4. Awadh (Uttar Pradesh)
    5. Purvanchal/Bhojpur (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar)
    6. Bundelkhand (Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh)
    7. Mithilanchal (Bihar)
    8. Gorkhaland (West Bengal)
    9. Bodoland (Assam)
    10. Kamatapur/Greater Cooch Behar (West Bengal and Assam)
    11. Saurashtra (Gujarat)
    12. Vidarbha (Maharashtra)
    13. Telangana (Andhra Pradesh)
    14. Rayalseema (Andhra Pradesh)
    15. Coastal Andhra (Andhra Pradesh)
    16. Coorg (Karnataka)

    image

    Is it economically feasible to form Telengana? What about the future of Hyderabad?

    This is something i am not sure of. Telangana will be the first south Indian state without a coastline. So it might end up like one of the central Indian states. But on other hand it has Hyderabad which can provide required growth to develop Telangana.
    Mission 2018 - Final assault
  • As Ram Guha has repeatedly argued in his various columns, India needs smaller states purely for administrative reasons. Some of the states (like Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka) are just too large -- in fact many of them larger in area as well as more populous than most European nations! This unwieldiness of large states leads to patches of under-development, generally in the far-flung areas: Eastern UP, Vidarbh, Telangana, etc (and historically the area that is currently Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh). As far as I remember, Guha argues for UP to be divided into 4 states in order to be governed well.

    There was another interesting perspective by one of the bloggers that these reforms however should be swift as the once the political class in the state acknowledges that sooner and later they would have to let go of the area demanding a separate state, they have even less incentive to invest in and develop that area. Telangana, in that way, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • @skylax in some cases like uttarakhand and jharkhand, smaller states have been a failure.
  • @skylax in some cases like uttarakhand and jharkhand, smaller states have been a failure.
    Can u specify how they are failures?
    AFAIK, these states are doing far better economically than UP and Bihar....
  • but isn't growing regionalism, 'asmita' thing harmful to unity of the nation ? e.g. will seemandhra guy have same feeling towards Telangana guy ? Just a concern.
  • @pratikh out of the three states formed in 2000 only Jharkhand performs worse than the 'mother' state which is Bihar...this may be due to the lack of a strong and stable leadership rather than the reason it being small or big
  • @bhaz Thanks for the information
    So the points are
    1) This is the first state to be divided on the factors mentioned by you ( correct me if i'm wrong)
    2) The committee recommendations weren't completely adhered to
    3) Telangana sets a bad precedent as there will be chaos in terms of number of statehood demands
    4) Politically: Congress has agreed to the demand of Telengana on the basis of merger with the TRS
    5) As far as i can see , the majority of Andhra( not telengana) want a united Andhra pradesh.
    6) Economically it seems like a bad decision
    7) No idea about future of Hyderabad.
    @bdebbarma Economically they may be doing well . But not from human development perspective. The recent disasters in uttarakhand are a pointer towards the governance of the state .Jharkhand has seen 9 governments in 13 years of its formation : is this progress? Plus , if you notice , most of the north east states are small and i don't think there has been much development in most of them.Do you believe that further division of the nation is a positive? read this http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/7UWxNPJCtoZQAi0pPnssCN/Do-small-states-really-make-better-ones.html
  • and ya forgot ..
    8) Negative impact on the unity of the country
  • its just for political gain, nothing more. in united andhra pradesh telangana region is more developed than other two regions told by sri krishna committee..
    definetly congress pays a lot in andhra . in 1972 jai andhra agitation took place a which is the only agitation in andhra pradesh ,central govt put emergency in andhra.Even then thethen pm indira gandhi didnt give separate andhra saying that it is not good for integrity of india. but now after all development of capital ,present congress govt gives telangana with hyd.
    till now what ever party divide new states ,it shouldnt come to power till now after 2001 three states. history repeats.. india is not the estate of gnadhi's family...
  • edited July 2013
    @pratikh out of the three states formed in 2000 only Jharkhand performs worse than the 'mother' state which is Bihar...this may be due to the lack of a strong and stable leadership rather than the reason it being small or big
    I have to contradict here...all these hoopla about Bihar performance since Nitish era is a mirage...

    I have worked and lived in Patna. The reality is Bihar is a state where electricity doesnt come for more than 4-5 hours in a day in summer...with no prospect for heavy industries...due to resource constraints...etc

    Jharkhand is light years ahead of Bihar..it is one of India's most industrially developed states and the heartland of India's economy...just check ur indian geography section of GS..
  • telangana state is given on the basis of sentiment .. is it good for country?
  • @bdebbarma Yes i know that jharkhand is more industialized but most of the industrialization occured when it was a part of bihar ( and reason for industrialization is chotanagpur plateau filled with resources)
  • @tapasvi07 Maybe Raja Gopala Chary might have felt the same when he was told 'Telugu Sentiment'.
    Don't ever let someone tell you that you cant do something
  • @pratikh

    U got lots of points about telangana...but i have to disagree with you about small states..

    Actually there was an essay question in mains 2011 about exactly this topic which we are discussing...whether small states are better?

    U are wrong because if u say about human development...just a reading of Economic Survey will tell you that small states have highest HDI in India....

    Northeast states have very high HDI....economically also they if u see poverty, inequality, per capita, etc they are far better than very big states like UP, MP, etc...

    So whats ur next argument?
  • @bdebbarma thanks for enlightening me. But i strongly believe that smaller states are harmful for the unity of the country . Just look at the implications of Telengana http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/after-telangana-vidarbha-gorkhaland-and_865434.html
  • @bdebbarma i based it on pure facts provided by the planning commission (though growth rates should not be an indicator of how the state is faring it does give a basic idea)...you might call Jharkhand the industrial hotbed, but then similar to Bihar there are only certain places that see development at the end of the day..
    http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_103.pdf
  • edited July 2013
    When talking about viability, we need to keep in perspective that Telangana is not really going to be a "small state". It will be geographically larger than Bihar, West Bengal, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Assam, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh etc. Financially speaking, 60% of the revenues of the state come from the Telangana region (mostly from the capital city).
    Blog: DailyGyan | AIR 380s in CSE 2013 | Thank you ForumIAS!
  • @bdebbarma i still stick to the point that jharkhand was industrialized well before it got formed. But still i believe jharkhand had a valid argument for tribal welfare. Telengana doesn't.
    Also not all north eastern states are well developed. Plus what guarantee do you have that dividing a state will be beneficial ? Instead decentralization of powers is a better way forward!
  • When talking about viability, we need to keep in perspective that Telangana is not really going to be a "small state". It will be geographically larger than Bihar, West Bengal, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Assam, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh etc. Financially speaking, 60% of the revenues of the state come from the Telangana region (mostly from the capital city).

    And the capital is the undecided factor in the split!
  • edited July 2013
    @pratikh The indecision is regarding Hyderabad's immediate status. Temporarily shared or not, it will ultimately become part of Telangana since it is geographically encompassed by it.
    Blog: DailyGyan | AIR 380s in CSE 2013 | Thank you ForumIAS!
  • @spirate Do you think that the people of andhra will accept that? Don't you know what happened with Chandigarh?
  • Telangana demand as mentioned in srikrishna committee report was justified in 1960s and 70s beacause of it lesser development compared to other 2 regions. But from then the developemnt in the region has been good enough and now the demand has become purely political citing reasons of people's sentiments though there has been active pariticipation in telangana movement from only 4(Warangal, Khammam, Adilabad, Karimnagar) of 10 districts of telangana.

    Such division of states based only on people's sentiment which are mainly manipulated by the regional parties despite clear alternative suggested by srikrishna committee report is a bad omen for territorial integrity and unity of India. Now remaining aspiring states may step in intensifying their agitation taking this as a precedent and get involved political gimmikry as has happened in case of telangana
  • @pratikh Chandigarh is a different scenario as it is on the border between punjab and haryana. Here in AP, Hyd is nearly 200Km away from andhra border in every drection and is in the heart of Telangana. You cannot epect it to be common capital for long as it means people from andhra region should go 200Km inwards of another state for their administrative/judicial/beurocratic works. I dont see it possible. Hyderabad only serves as capital of andhra pradesh until andhrapradesh develops its own capital
  • The people of Andhra + Rayalaseema do not want their capital to be geographically discontiguous from the rest of the state. They will do all they can to prevent Telangana state from being created in the first place. But if that does go through, they would want to develop their own capital in a few years.

    As the previous poster mentioned, the situation here is different from that of Chandigarh.
    Blog: DailyGyan | AIR 380s in CSE 2013 | Thank you ForumIAS!
  • edited July 2013
    @skylax in some cases like uttarakhand and jharkhand, smaller states have been a failure.
    It depends on your frame of reference. People tend to compare Jharkhand's progress since its formation with Bihar's rate. Clearly, not fair. Its rate has to be compared with itself i.e. before and after the formation. That Bihar got a stable government and better growth rates shouldn't reflect poorly on Jharkhand. Some articles have even included the recent tragedy in Uttarakhand and lack of preparation on the part of the state govt as proof of failure of small states. It's again very harsh; we will never see but can only speculate on how Uttar Pradesh govt could have managed such a tragedy better.

    As has been suggested by different analysts, one of the solutions for weak governments can be increasing the number of constituencies for state assemblies, esp. in small states. With merely 81 seats, majority of a single party becomes very difficult.

    Pre-empting criticism of this solution on two grounds:
    1. NE assemblies are small and have worked- True, but Jharkhand and future smaller states have more established political parties and multi-polar competitions, unlike NE
    2. Won't increasing seats increase every party's seat share proportionally: No, we cannot do a linear extrapolation because we have a first-past-the-post system and not a proportional representation system

    @bdebbarma There seems to be some ideological disconnect between you and Bihar's growth numbers. That you are working in Patna without having been kidnapped yet (or having received threats of that happening) is in itself a sea change from the lawless, feudal, almost spaghetti-western 90s. You seem to be comparing Bihar of now with the state where you lived before coming to work here, so I can understand your frustration and your refusal of all the statistical evidences as mirage. But please do not let that get in the way of understanding the issue at hand.

    @Spirate Yes, Telangana for now might be large, but that should not prevent the first step. In future, it maybe further divided, but for now this step should be welcome. It need not necessarily be either 1 state or 4 states scenario, it can be approached in steps.
  • @skylax True. I may have been wrong in my judgements. May have been carried away by the emotions of further division of the country . :P
    @pratikh Chandigarh is a different scenario as it is on the border between punjab and haryana. Here in AP, Hyd is nearly 200Km away from andhra border in every drection and is in the heart of Telangana. You cannot epect it to be common capital for long as it means people from andhra region should go 200Km inwards of another state for their administrative/judicial/beurocratic works. I dont see it possible. Hyderabad only serves as capital of andhra pradesh until andhrapradesh develops its own capital

    @bharath 10 years is not really a short time. And after 10 years of sharing of capital do you think change will be possible. In fact the 200 kms is another problem. How will they manage for 10 years? Helicopters?
  • as far as economic viability is concerned, telangana is rich in natural resources like coal , bauxite etc
    so they can capitalize on that.

    but when it comes to agriculture, there is very little that can be done. telangana lies in deccan plateau. To tap river water, there is need for lift irrigation which costs a lot. That has been one of the reasons for lack of development of agriculture in telangana vis-a-vis andhra .

    coming to political viability, as already mentioned, telangana is a larger state with around 120 member assembly. So chances of hung assembly, horse trading will be less though cant be ruled out considering the growing number of new political parties in this region

    one major worry is the return of naxalism to the region. Most of top leadership in naxal movement hails from telangana region. Andhra's greyhound force played a crucial role in flushing them out to neighboring states.
    We will have to wait and see how the telangana government will approach this problem.

    Mission 2018 - Final assault
  • @pratikh It is difficult for these 10 years also but you cannot expect the new state to have its capital rightaway as till date all the infrastucture development in Ap has been focussed only on Hyderabad. Now, they have to bear with it as there is no suitable city in AP after hyderabad which can be named as a capital and it needs time to be developed. It doesnt mean after 10 years one fine day a new city will emerge out of nowhere. All the government activities will be slowly moved to the new city that is being planned and will take another 6-7 years before the complete mobilization is completed.
  • @all,
    as an aside...to any andhra guys here..
    Which city in AP is predicted to become the new capital? Vijayawada, Vizag or any other?
    Just curious to know..

    @skylax
    Got ur point...law and order is better now in Bihar...but economywise and societywise its still the dark ages...
Sign In or Join to comment.

Courses by ForumIAS for CSE
ForumIAS is trusted by over 10,000+ students for their Prelims, Mains and Interview Preparation and we currently run several assistance programs to help students from Civil Services prelims preparation to rank upgradation to IAS. You can enroll for these programs by visiting http://blog.forumias.com/courses

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog