Today is a day of celebration. We have been vindicated. I won’t say anything further. Just read what Justice Srikrishna has to say:
One of the major arguments for a separate state of Telangana has been that since the formation of the state of AP, this region has been neglected and even discriminated against, resulting in economic and social hardship.
Compared with coastal Andhra, it is alleged that Telangana has low per capita income, lower access to employment, lower business opportunities and low access to education and so on. It is also alleged that most of the higher level economic opportunities are appropriated by those belonging to coastal Andhra.
At the outset, some or all such allegations appear true when absolute amounts, numbers and percentages are reviewed. Yet, when a study of rate of change, growth rate and shares in the state economy is evaluated, nothing unusual emerges. Telangana excluding Hyderabad, currently has a share of 36% in state population and 41% in state land mass. Any development parameter that is consistent with these shares can be considered on par or at parity with the population / share of land mass. Indeed, one finds that at a reference point in the past, such as the census 1961 or 1956 or 1974 since when factual data are available, the shares for Telangana were far too low (refer to Figure 2.44). In recent years, however the shares of Telangana for many common development parameters are in league with the share of population / area, often being higher.
There are a few crucial indicators on which Telangana is lagging behind, and they appear to have occurred due to structural causes of the economy and also due to concentration of economic activity in Hyderabad district/urban agglomeration.
Overall, in spite of 50 plus years of policy protected planning and execution, one finds regional variations in the economic development of AP. The rate of growth in the development parameters summed up below is found to be robust both in Telangana (even after excluding Hyderabad) and coastal Andhra. Disturbing, however, are the growing levels of inequity within Telangana and Rayalaseema, and within the deprived population groups. Contrastingly, the evidence suggests that the inequity in income has, in fact, declined in coastal Andhra. It is essential, therefore, to take a note of inequity differentials between the haves and have-nots in Telangana, especially amongst the SCs, STs and minorities. Such deepening inequity in Telangana can not only sustain the separatist agitation but it can also carry it further and increase its intensity. The masses, therefore, can be easily used as tools of agitation by motivated groups and even political parties.
We have been vindicated by Justice Srikrishna. The time to fight for Telugu Unity with all our strength has come.
Save Andhra Pradesh!
Keep State United; Just Separate Revenue department 2 finance ministers for Telangana and SeemaAndhra on conditions. Distribute resources strictly based on Demographics. Problem Solved.
OK, then in what way separating will help ‘reducing’ their growth rate, like the affluent places? 🙂
I think SKC report clearly said there is wide gap between rich and poor in the Telangana region and that is why lot of disinfected sections are hoping separation will solve their issues. But it won’t. First try to remove disparity by giving opportunity for everyone to grow, not just some. This is to be done in all places including US, but probably more in ‘backward’ regions. why we see countries getting together to solve many issues, like EU? We even have attempts to do similar things in south asia, remember SAARC? It is not being done effectively, but that is another matter.
some bloopers from skc report.. http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/skc-report-bloopers.html#more
the committee tried to assuage people of both arguments with more tilting towards united AP. Here is the last para of the prologue.
“4. At the end of the investigation, it began to appear that there was a
case both for a separate Telangana as well as for keeping the state united.
Some other options, particularly bringing into focus the issue of backwardness
of Rayalaseema region and some other parts of the state, were also
suggested by different stakeholders and these too have been examined. After
considering all aspects, the Committee found the balance tilting in favour of
keeping the state united, though some valid and strong reasons that had
continued to cause discontent in Telangana region since its merger indicated
that the demand for separation was also not entirely unjustified. All these
aspects have been discussed in detail in Chapter 9 of the Report and
conclusions arrived at. The mandate given to the Committee having been
fulfilled, the Committee now hopes that the maturity of our governance
system will lead to a rightful resolution of this contentious issue.”
In the Historical background chapter of SKC first report, it began with formation of Andhra Pradesh and already existing Hyderabad – All through the rest of the chapter, it details the efforts by state and central leaders to bring amicable solution to both the regions on the basis that Hyderabad state is backward and Andhra will dominate them and hence come up with all sorts of goodies(safeguards). But a fundamental fact that was forgotton is that the Telugu culture and telugu people have been living together for centuries far before the formation of either Andhra or Hyderabad state. So, my point is that the overriding reason for an united Andhra should be our cultural roots rather than narrating the difficulties in bringing together the two regions together. Why do you think they did not go beyond 1956 ?
If I remember correctly, SKC mandate was to look at the issue from 1956 and on.
Chakravarthy garu, thanks for the extract. I have spent couple of hours today going through the report. Pretty exhaustive report covering lot of ground !
I am sure, we will be spending lot of time bisecting and disecting this report for long time.
It reminded me of your hard work done single handedly in your book ( my telugu roots) . They were doing their entrusted job while you thought that it was your job to bring these facts to light . Great job.
While SKC team seemed to have given an unbiased report, I still cannot understand why they had to give the option of bifurcation, if it does not merit based on the facts.
What do you think are the reasons for giving these options, especially option 5 of separate telangana ? Are they also trying to be politically correct ?
Committees such as these are good at fact finding. They shouldn’t be asked to make recommendations, because those should fall in the political arena. When you read the report, barring a few isolated issues, SKC pretty clearly says there is no basis for discrimination. To the contrary, they say that Nizam region developed at a faster pace. Then why does Nizam region need special constitutional guarantees? In fact, isn’t there a stronger case for Rayalaseema to have the constitutional guarantees?
SKC fell in the same trap that Fazal Ali. In both cases, facts do not jive with the recommendations.
I am very happy with the findings. This line is telling:
“The masses, therefore, can be easily used as tools of agitation by motivated groups and even political parties.”
When there is no “Real Cause” the political parties need to created a “Cause” for spinning the masses.