Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 21, 2010 in Telugu Nadu

Chakravarthy Garu Responds to Comments (Restored)

I am restoring this important posts that was lost in the db-crash earlier. The following is Sri Chakravarthy’s response to comments on his article titled, “Save Andhra Pradesh”


My Response to your comments on “Save Andhra Pradesh” note

Nalamotu Chakravarthy

Thank you to all of you who took the time to respond to my note. This is a difficult and emotional issue for all Telugu people and the passion is quite understandable. I obviously cannot answer every comment that is posted, but I will try to clarify my position on some of the specific questions that were raised.

First and foremost, a big thank you to all my fellow Telugus who support the cause for a United Andhra Pradesh.

If you would like me to respond to your comments, please keep them brief and specific to the issue. Here goes my response:

  1. There was quite a bit of controversy around the data I published. I have cited sources for every single data point I presented in my book. Please note that all the sources I have used are publicly available in Andhra Pradesh. I spent two months in India circling public libraries and government offices gathering the data. If any of you find inaccuracies in the data I presented, all I ask for is scanned pages of the documents that show the mistake and I will go ahead and correct my numbers right away. The real issue that should worry all of you is how someone who doesn’t even live in the state can gather so much data in two months, while scores of professors in A.P. who spend their lifetime in research are not publishing results like this. Is there anything more important in A.P. than this particular issue at this moment?
  2. There has been a lot of chatter about using percentages to show the relative growth of each region. I urge you all to read my commentary closely. I have mentioned multiple times that percentages in some cases can exaggerate the growth. In every one of those instances I provided normalized numbers.
  3. The comment about why our state was named Andhra Pradesh and not Telangana or Telugu Pradesh. I provided the history behind our state’s name in my book. Also, lookout for my upcoming note on this exact topic.
  4. I found a compelling argument made by one of the bloggers. His point was, if Kosta had 11 lakh hectares under canal irrigation before the united state came into existence, where did the Nagarjunasagar dam water went? Here are the canal irrigation numbers by decade. You will notice that the area under irrigation goes up starting 1971, which is attributable to Nagarjunasagar. The fluctuations in the canal irrigation area, I have to presume, are related to the amount of rainfall received in each of those years. I will leave rest of the data interpretation up to the blogger:
    • Canal Irrigation in Hectares for years: 1956, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001
    • Kosta: 1106258, 1104754, 1208432, 1279453, 1369821, 1224559
    • Rayalaseema: 70860, 94401, 150287, 144259, 147164, 124567
    • Nizam Telangana: 114720, 132076, 220106, 269080, 351882, 300261
  5. There were questions about 6-point formula, Gentlemen’s agreement and other topics. I have delved into all of those in my book.
  6. Then there was a point made about 1700 TMC going waste into ocean- not sure if the blogger was referring to Krishna or Godavari. Though the number seems very high, I am going to assume Krishna, as Godavari is a lesser controversy. I do not know the exact quantity of Krishna TMC going into the ocean. I am willing to accept your number for the sake of this discussion. However, remember that these are flood waters and are not a reliable source. 800 TMC is what Bachawat determined as available to us with 75% dependability. Building large scale projects to tap waters that may come once in five years may not be the most prudent approach. I reiterate my point that tank irrigation is the best source for districts that are at a higher altitude.
  7. Another comment was made about my analysis on election results in Chapter 20 of my book. The blogger presents a compelling argument that almost all political parties supported the Telangana state during the elections. My point is that when the by-election was presented by TRS as those that are for separation versus those that are not, TRS lost miserably. If separation of the state was high on people’s agenda, TRS should have swept the last two elections. Saying that, I see the bloggers line of reasoning and hence I said clearly in my book, “the case for a separate Telangana state is not clear cut.”
  8. Then comments about cultural differences between regions. These are somewhat subjective. I will leave it up to the readers to make up their minds. I come from a school of thought that there are many common cultural aspects that have bound Telugus together for over 2000 years, as opposed to the differences created in the last 100-200 years- thanks to the British, French, and Islamic invaders.

Save Andhra Pradesh!