Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day?

In order to not lose the momentum of their movement, TRS is working hard to gin up issue after issue till the Srikrishna Committee finishes its work. According to The Hindu August 20, 2010, KCR said that “…citizens all over the world enjoyed the right to celebrate the freedom of their homeland. But, people of Telangana alone were unlucky on this front. The Independence Day on August 15 was not a matter of celebration for them. On the contrary, they got their real independence from the clutches of Nizam's rule on September 17”.


In my view KCR and his TRS cohorts should grieve on September 17th and not celebrate.


In the modern history of Telugus there are three salient events- 1) Formation of Andhra State 2) Liberation of the Hyderabad State 3) Formation of Andhra Pradesh (Vishalandhra)


In my view all three should be celebrated, by one and all. However, no more government, bank, or school holidays- they wreak economic havoc on common man.


Andhra State was formed on October 1, 1953. The state came into existence, after a struggle that started in 1904 when Young Men's Literary Association was formed in Guntur. This organization transformed into Andhra Mahasabha. Father of the Andhra State movement Konda Venkatappayya fought hard for over three and a half decades for a state that will unite Telugus scattered across different regions. After the death of Amarajeevi Potti Sriramulu, Nehru conceded to the creation of Andhra State.


Now coming to the Hyderabad State, half of the state was made up of Telugu people, while Marathi, Kannada, and others constituted the remaining half. Initially Persian and later on Urdu became the official language of the state, despite Telugu being the most spoken language in the state. Telugu people were not even allowed to speak in their mother tongue in public forums. Telugus tired of discrimination under Nizam formed Andhra Mahasabha. Respectable figures like Madapati Hanumanth Rao, Survaram Pratap Reddy, Raavi Narayana Reddy led this organization. Later on the organization came to be dominated by Communists who have organized the peasants in an armed struggle against Nizam and his feudal lords, who have committed untold atrocities against civilians. Over 4,000 people died in that armed struggle and over 2,000 from the Nalgonda district alone. This movement shook the foundation of Nizam's rule. During this struggle against Nizam, friendly relationships developed between the Nizam Telugu districts and the Madras Telugu districts, which laid the seeds for a future Vishalandhra.


After India's independence from the Britishers, almost all the 600 odd princely states merged with either India or Pakistan, while Nizam toyed with the idea of staying independent. On September 13, 1948 Nehru ordered Operation Polo, which was one of the easiest wars Indian army ever undertook. Andhra Pradesh state came into existence on November 1st 1956 according to the desires of majority of the Telugu people of all the regions. Burugula Ramakrishna Rao sacrificed his CM position for Telugu unity.


Therefore, Andhra State formation on October 1st, Hyderabad State Liberation on September 17th, and formation of Andhra Pradesh on November 1st should be celebrated by all Telugus.


For current day separatists, millions of peasants that suffered under feudal atrocities under Nizam’s rule are not so material. It doesn’t matter that Hyderabad was built for elites, with the blood sucked from the poor farmers who had to endure 26 different kinds of taxes including taxes such as levy- which is what farmers had to pay irrespective of the output on the land, dispute tax to have a dispute settled between two parties, ash tax to cremate loved ones, war tax to finance the British in the 2nd world war. While Nizam ruled from Hyderabad and gave over 80% of the government jobs to Muslims, feudal lords reigned over rural areas running their own fiefdoms and fleecing poor peasants. Janna Reddy Pratap Reddy of Suryapeta owning 1.5 lakh acres of land, Kalluru Deshmukh of Khammam owning one lakh acres, Visunur Deshmukh owning forty thousand acres gives an idea of how dire the situation was. While Nizam derived approximately 8 crore rupees annual revenue, the feudal lords combined revenues were around 10 crore rupees. As a result of this robbing, Nizam became the richest man in the world with 27 palaces in 7 different countries.


However, separatists look at this past very differently.


TRS chief KCR at a public event on June 19th 2007 said “Asaf Jahi rule of Telangana is a golden era”. Responding to those that criticized him for praising Nizam, KCR on November 29, 2007 said that he would praise Nizam’s rule a thousand times. He said that during the Nizam rule, Muslim kings sent pearls to Lord Rama in Bhadrachalam and jewelry to Kanaka Durga in Vijayawada. He said that when there were floods in Musi, Nizam performed prayers according to Hindu rituals. KCR claimed that any development in Telangana was only because of the Nizams. Osmania University, the Medical College, the Nizam Sagar project, and the Nizam Sugar Factory were all results of Nizam’s benevolence.


There are several other intellectuals in the separatist camp that subscribe to this position. Prof. Kodandaram, the head of the JAC, wrote: “Before the merger with Andhra State, Telangana, which was part of the Hyderabad State, was doing well in terms of agricultural and industrial development.”


If Nizam’s rule was a golden era and if the region was doing economically well before Police Action, why does KCR and the separatists want to celebrate September 17th as a “Vimukthi Dinotsavam”? Shouldn’t they be grieving the end of Nizam’s glorious rule?

Save Andhra Pradesh!

Nalamotu Chakravarthy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

763 Responses to “Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day?”

  1. Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

    Forum Members ,
    It would be really good if everyone of you can express your individual views on this and lead towards a healthy debate. 
    Here is the news article for your perusal :
    The state government, which has until now gone full throttle to get Centre's nod for national status to Polavaram project, seems to have suddenly changed gears. With the Telangana issue on its mind, the question before it is whether to continue lobbying hard for the project, which falls in the Andhra region.

    Initially, the government had been hoping that the Centre would agree to accord national status to both Polavaram and Pranahita-Chevella project, which falls in Telangana region. But with the Centre making it clear that as per the norms it would give national status to Polavaram project for present, sources in the irrigation department say that they have been going slow on the issue primarily because of the T factor.


  2. justice says:

          I am not an expert in Irrigation except reading on what people talk and write so pardon my ignorance if I sound foolish ..
    I say donot fund both of these projects. It is a waste of tax payers money majority of which would endup in the pockets of Netas and babus any way.
    May be use these funds (loan it to farmers at 0% interest rate ) so that they can use it build tanks,bore wells etc in their area .. Some sort of irrigation co-operatives 
    Again as I mentioned above ..I dont know how far this is feasible

    • AMRAO says:

      It is pretty clear that the Centre wants to say no to the funds. Every one knows that selecting one out of the two would be a disaster.

  3. Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

    Thanks for your quick response. Well lets see what others have to offer.

  4. justice says:

                                   I did not watch the entire video clipping due to firewall restrictions. I understand that this is about the conterversy regarding Komaram Bheem. I totally support that his contributions need to be recognised by one and all.
    But instead of  giving it a regional color and threatening to blow up statutes or using belittling words on other prominent social leaders we should collectively pose a question to the ruling netas as to why no body gets a name recognition unless they have a surname sounding like Nandamuri,Yedugiri or  Gandhi 
    For that matter even Seetaramaraju burial place is in tatters due to neglect 

  5. AMRAO says:

    Komaram Bheem
    The TV9 program about Komaram Bheem was to keep the fire raging. As Justice said, his contributions need to be recognized by one and all. But my question is, was he recognized by his own people? 
    Any one visiting Godavari districts, especially Bhimavaram, would find Alluri Sitarama Raju statues in every area. These statues were constructed by the people but not the government.
    My question is how many statues of Komaram Bheem have been erected in Adilabad until now? How many times did the local people in Adilabad celebrate his contributions?
    It is pretty clear that his name is being used now to give it a regional color and discrimination.

    • satya says:

      is it Worth really discussing on TV9 content, a channel with no values?
      btw, I didn't read about alliuri in any of my academics.

  6. justice says:

    There are places named in vijayawada after P Sundarayya to acknowledge his contributions in the fight against Nizam and later his role in the communist movement
    Sundarayya Nagar, Sundarayya veedhi etc

  7. Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

    I do not want to emphasise more on Komaram Bheem Issue as of now. BTW it would be great if you can express your views on Polavaram and Pranahita – Chevella.

  8. Prakash says:

    Chakravarthy says: October 26, 2010 at 10:59 am
    Thank you for your elaboration. Wonderful to relive those experiences!
    "The festival was not divided along castes or classes in places where my parents lived. All hindus celebrated it"
    This is exactly the same point I am making. This was the case in Warangal and in fact Muslims also joined in the fun. Muslims also participated in Diwali, Dasara, Holi & kites festivals. Hindus joined in Peer celebrations.
    "Saying that, there probably is history that goes much back in time, when Bathukamma was restricted to certain classes"
    Quite possible given India's deep divisions. However this must have been before independance.
    I respect Dr. Ilaiah as a scholar and an activist. His statement on Batkamma must however be taken with a pinch of salt. I believe this may be derived from family anecdotes and not a personal experience.
    I find it interesting that some people use the views of Dr. Ilaiah to further their own arguments. Dr. Ilaiah's stand on Telangana (or the stand of Katti Padmarao or Kufr for that matter) is intricately linked to and derived from their social outlook & political philosophy. Delinking the two leads to inconsistencies.

  9. Prakash says:

    @AMRAO re Urdu etc.
    OU was formed after WWI with Urdu medium. Before this, schooling was in 5 different mediums of instruction. After this, all schools in Hyderabad started switching to Urdu medium. The reason provided for the switch was to ensure seamless integration between schooling & university medium. After police action, OU shifted to English and schools started reverting to multiple mediums. My father studied till PUC in Urdu medium but switched to English medium once he joined B.Sc. 
    I am not clear whether your father's example was about medium or an additional (language) subject . He may have studied Telugu as one of the subjects but general subjects were probably taught in English. His classmates would have selected Urdu because this is what they learnt in primariy school (like kids who moved from Delhi would select Hindi over Telugu).
    "Until NTR came to power, people who knew Telugu also spoke Urdu"
    Not my experience. Yes, most people were bi-lingual (or tri-lingual) and are so even today. I believe "autowalla mis-treating Telugu speakers" is a propaganda that stuck. This propaganda suits TDP's language & regional agenda well.
    "It was certainly not for a brief period"
    The imposition of Urdu was the "brief" inter-war period, not the 200+ year Asafjahi rule. You may also note Urdu was the second language of the Telangana struggle, thanks to Makhdoom & co. As a fan of this great Indian language, I regret the drop in Urdu's popularity levels. Insha'Alllah, Urdu should regain its rightful place as a language of poetry, love, tolerance & equality.

  10. Prakash says:

    @ Chaandra Mohan Nellutla re irrigation projects
    I am no expert on the related subjects. However I am opposed to these projects on the following grounds:
    - Environmentally unsound
    - Contractor-babu-meta nexus (Sagar created a TSR; surely we don't want more of these guys?)
    - Submergence of tribal lands & loss of livelihood (Polavaram)
    - Unviable (Pranahita-Chevella)
    Left to me, I would scrap both these projects. Mr. Nalamotu's idea on reviving tank based irrigation is the best bet going forward.
    Re Komaram Bheem, I am against all statues ("useless monuments" as Ayn Rand called them). I agree ignoring such figures is counter-productive culturally & socially. We should celebrate Bheem by including him in school curriculum, not building statues. Matina beach style statues on Tankbund & RK beach is foolish idea that could only have been conceived by a conceited (and copycat) actor with inflated ego.
    BTW you may like to check the "regional balance" of the Vizag statues :)

    • Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

      @ Prakash,
      Your points and opinions are well taken atleast y by me. Further, I would be interested to hear Mr. Nalmothu's View on these aspects and then you would see me expressing my views.
      One thing I could say is that the above issues have links somewhere else. So, I would say lets open up a debate and I am sure it would go towards a healthy arguement if everyone have patience.

      • Chakravarthy says:

        I've said on multiple occassions on this blog that I am opposed to Polavaram.

        Mega irrigation projects are no longer a panacea they once used to be. They wreck the environment, they result in large-scale displacement of people and property, they require huge investments with questionable returns. Small-scale irrigation is a far more effective solution, but government officers and politicians are usually not keen on those schemes, since they can't make the same kind of money they make on large-scale projects.

        Godavari river has a significant silt problem- which currently is affecting SRSP. Polavaram will have similar issues. Also, Polavaram results in large-scale displacement of people, particularly tribals. Tribals are claiming that their compensation is not at par with non-tribals as non-tribal lands are assessed at a much higher value. There are concerns with the height of the dam and the the potential flood. Lastly, and most importantly, Krishna water is far more precious than Godavari. We have surplus Godavari water and deficit Krishna water. By building Polavaram, we give up a portion of our share of Krishna river water to upstream states- this is according to Bachwat ruling.

        On the regional side, there is suspicion among people of Nizam that Polavaram is designed to siphon-off Krishna water to Rayalaseema. In other words, link Godavari and Krishna rivers to meet downstream irrigation requirements. This justifies taking water from the upstream of Krishna to Rayalaseema. Late YSR has given some credence to those suspicions with his actions.

        I don't have to say much about Pranahita-Chevella. It is a political gimmick to please the people of Nizam. I personally don't think that project will ever complete. Even if it completes, it will not operate as promised, due to the costs involved in lifting large volume of water to incredible heights. This project is a great example of what happens when people look at every project through the prism of regional discrimination- politicians pull wool over people's eyes by doing phony projects.

  11. Prakash says:

    @AMRAO further on Urdu:
    The imposition of Urdu was *only* in the medium. Hyderabad literature & art boomed during Osman Ali's reign (witness Dasaradhi brothers, Kaloji, Suravaram, Makhdoom et al). 

  12. AMRAO says:

    I would like to put an end to the Urdu debate by saying that I am not against Urdu. All I was saying was that Telugu as a language or medium of instruction has not been encouraged until 1956. Even after that, there was reluctance to learn Telugu. The situation improved significantly after NTR came to power. Perhaps it would help knowing that majority of the offices started having boards in Telugu after NTR came to power.

    • Chakravarthy says:

      AMRAO garu- Nearly half of the people in Hyderabad state were Telugus. Still, Urdu and Maratha were the dominant languages. Telugu language and people were openly discriminated. It was called Telangi Bedanghi. The formation of Andhra Jana Sangham and its later transformation to Andhra Mahasabha happened because Telugu people could not take those insults any longer. In addition, there was extensive religious discrimination too. Most of the government jobs in Hyderabad were held by muslims and there were tensions between religious organizations like Arya Samaj and MIM, particularly over conversions.

  13. satya says:

    @chandra Mohan Nellutla, Thanks for posting a good topic to discuss. Though I do not know the low level details of both projects here are my quick view on this subject.
    I presume we should consider 3 major factors in selecting one for national project status.
    1) cost of the project
    2) Risks in getting approvals
    3) Benifts of the project
    If cost is considered the cost of polavaram is 17000 crores and cost of Pranahita is around 42500 crores. Definitely the cost factor suggests that pranahita should be considered as national project. Having said that we need to understand the different aspects in getting a national project status.
    a) The CWC evaluation on a project cost and benifits is very rigorous that it will consider many dimensions in terms of project viability and inflows, water availability etc.. I honestly doubt pranahita with a cost of 42000 crore and an annual cost of 2000 crore can meet the CWC norms in asserting as national project? Infact, the polavaram project which is designed decades ago and suggested by Bachawat itself is taking lot of hardships to eligible for national project.
    b) will the center ready to give 42000 crores to a state in the name of national project? I dont think so. In fact I read it some where that it is trying to delay the status for even polavaram (15% of the amount already spent by state) so that the burden on center will get reduced. This is expected by union govt as it has to face a serious questionnaire from other states if they give 42000 crores to a single state
    c) is the state in a position to bear the power consumption of pranahita? 3375 watt power is required annually to lift the water from 1600 feet. The highest in the world. The state's total power generation capacity is 8159 MW ( The subsidy of 800 crores that the govt giving for free power for farmers is already became a big burden on state govt. is the state ready to bear another 3000 crores power subsidy for this project? Infact, from where will they provide this electricity in the first place?
    d) I do not have knowledge on how much it costs to irrigate per acre, here is what JP says. " Although the Government claims that the capital cost comes to Rs.2.5 lakh per acre, it is likely to shoot up to Rs.5 lakh by the time the scheme is completed. In addition, the scheme involves a recurring expenditure of Rs.50,000 an acre on operation and maintenance."
    e) There is another bigger challenge from state of maharashtra as there are some villages which needs to be relocated because of the project. The state is known for giving trobules for andhra irrigation projects. They denied us building a gigantic project (yes.. 1000 TMC) at ichchamaplly though the state govt offered good compensation and made repeated pleas. Later the project turned into merely a lift irrigation project of 100 TMC. 
    In the end are theren't alternatives to spend these 50000 crores (half of Today's AP budget) for better irrigation facilities in telangana? I think even half of the money if they spend on minor irrigation like tanks the results will be double and with very less recurring costs. Money is money whether it is center's or state's.
    Now lets look at the Polavaram project.
    The project has an estimated cost of 17000 crore which also very high amount. The project capacity is 280 TMC entirely depends on gravity flow. Apart from that it generates an additional 1038 MW electricity which can definitely a boon to state. But all is not positive for polavaram. We are fighting with orissa in supreme court, the state which agreed for the design in 70's itself now objecting for better compensation. Another thing is submergence of tribal villages in khammam dist. Unfortunately this was given a regional colour.Another major concern is dam safety. At a time even the developed nations are implementing minor irrigation schemes concerning on ecological consequences, is such a big dam is needed? Having said that reducing the dam height from 150 feet or barrages is not a better alternative. because if they do so, the storage capacity will get reduced drastically and also the diversion 80 TMC to krishna delta will not possible. Thus it will effect the telangana regions because as per the plan 45 TMC of this have to be used in telangana areas. Another benifit we will loose is power generation.
    Honestly, I am no way against for telangana becoming more fertile but when u consider many other factors it appears pranahita is not a viable and will become a white elephant. I would vote if any other alternative even with half cost is proposed and given the national status to that. But I am not sure will the center give the status for minor irrigation projects.

  14. satya says:

    Here is one good read about AP water irrigation projects:

  15. Prakash says:

    Last comment on Urdu:
    Sure some Muslims used terms like "telangi bedangi" & "khada hoke mootne wala" but there was also "turkollu" & "adhacut" from the other side. Urdu & Marathi gained prominence in Govt. circles because many andhras preferred agriculture to public service.
    On the whole the atmosphere was one of tolerance and mutual respect. Several generations of my family (and all others that we know) never faced any problem or discrimination. Unfortunately vested interests ("unemployed politicians" to use a term popular today) painted everything with a linguistic color to further their own interests.
    Communists and their fellow travelers in the guise of Telugu proponents are fond of raising subjects like the infamous "heckling incident". They conveniently omit their own treatment of Bhagya Reddy Varma in the first NAMS conference and the many incidents in the first few conferences where people from the two parishads who came to express their solidarity were heckled.
    Division of the population into three language parishads set the freedom struggle back by more than a decade. The hijacking of NAMS by the reds further accentuated the division. It was only much later the parishads realized their folly and merged to form HSC under Thirtha's leadership.

    • Chandra says:

      I was quite busy,  not been able to post any message. Quick reply to prakash garu. As far as i learnt from my grandfather ,during Nizam time,only  urdu medium schools were  there. (may be very few with telugu but not at all sure).
      I have first hand info from my grandfather , he studied in urdu medium. He studied till 10th grade.He used to say at that time with that qualification he could have become something like tahsildar or even like  deputy collector , but said he did not pursue aggressively.
      He also used to say, how marwaris , punjabi muslims and other north indian people established business in hyd. Nizam  tried to suppress the local people deniying them proper education and cultural exposure, otherwise they might revolt against him if people are  skilled. But for govt to run and busines to happen he encouraged others to settle in Hyd. Thats how all these people "settled" he used to say. He said problem was not with muslims in general but only with Nizam.
       Ok now things got reversed especially after 1985 and since telugu's started dominating in "their own" capiatl city, which triggered anger among  those age old "settlers" also:)
      I would say, even during british raj, several indians were not discrimated and were given pretty good positions. That does not mean everything was fine!

  16. Prakash says:

    @Nelutla, @Nalamotu, re irrigation projects
    The forests are an integral part of the tribal way of life. The concept of treating as property is alien to them. Land is an invaluable common asset, not a commodity that can be traded, inherited or alienated. The concept of jhum cultivation stems from the need to sustain this asset over generations. Because land is not for sale, it can not be valued using "standard" methods like transfer pricing or demand-supply gap. No wonder the offered "compensation" is deemed inadequate.
    The additionakl complication in Polavaram is the impression that it is going to support third crop. This is, surely not an enthu point for the guys who are going to lose their livelihood and an integral part of their worldview.
    While I am opposed to Pranahita-Chevella, I am amused by the wordsmithing going on in the name of lift economics. People (including "experts") routinely speak of "800 meters altitude" clevely concealing the facts that this is with reference to MSL (an imaginary line hundreds of miles away) and the actual lifting is much lower.

    • satya says:

      >> I am amused by the wordsmithing going on in the name of lift economics. People (including “experts”) routinely speak of “800 meters altitude” clevely concealing the facts that this is with reference to MSL and the actual lifting is much lower.

      Prakash garu, Please reveal the facts that you are aware of this project. I think nobody referred with MSL when talking about Pranahita Chevella. At least In my comment I specifically quoted the water should be lifted from 1400-1600 ft. I would be happy if you correct me.

  17. Prabhakar Rao says:

    Prakash gaaru,
    you are at your usual best of poking.:)
    Following is extract from TRS submission to SKC.
    The Project needs huge power to the extent of 3375 MW. The Government has
    not planned yet from where the required power will be provided. Further, who will
    bear  the cost of energy, once  the Project comes  in  to operation  is not worked
    We have to get opinion of irrigation experts from other side on
    whether above question holds good even after national status is accorded to it.
    In short who is really in favor of Pranahita-Chevella? Of course either with or w/o National Status.

    IMO, irrigation projects are as important as industries considering the potential increase in demand for food.
    But our governments are handling both projects and industries in very clumsy way.
    All parties affected by such projects/industries should be convinced and made stakeholders in future returns.
    For example when an industry is setup land must be considered as important capital investment and land owners should be offered stake in industries along with immediate compensations.
    It is easier said than done. But considering the need for projects/industries an alternative approach must be worked out instead of taking radical stands in the name of environment, human rights etc.
    Millions of acres of forests were destroyed world-wide for regular needs.
    Forests being destroyed for irrigation projects will be nothing compared to those.
    Still so-called environmental protection activists target irrigation projects only.


  18. Prakash says:

    My last comment on this post
    Do you mean Osman Ali Khan when you refer to "Nizam"? By all anecdotal accounts I heard Mahboob Pasha was vastly different.
    I guess your grandfather went to school after the schools switched to Urdu (please see Prakash says: October 27, 2010 at 3:05 am) for some background). My own grand father was educated in Telugu medium and went on to teach Telugu. His colleagues & students included the doyens of Telugu literature. Even Vishwanadha Satyanarayana taught for many years in Karimnagar district.

    True some businesses were dominated by Marwaris but others (e.g. clothes & retail) were dominated by Telugus. None of my family or those we knew felt out of place "in oour own capital".
    I agree with you that "some people got good positions" is not tantamount to "all izz well". This may be why separatist movements come up (e.g. andhras were uncomfortable in Madras)
    Comrade Sundarayya's book is part fiction, part propaganda, part history.

  19. Prakash says:

    I was referring to the "experts" on TV, not you. I apologize if I gave the impression of criticizing you.

    • satya says:

      I never considered myself as 'expert' on irrigation. But I took ur comment in the context of this blog and thought u made a satire on those who talked about complications involved in this project

  20. Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

    This may help you all a Bit:
    Submitted by shivajirao32 on March 20, 2010 – 18:34
    (Replies to Discussion Report of Advisory Committee on alternate proposals made for
    Polavaram project by Sri.T.Hanumantha Rao, former Engineer-in-Chief, AP State)
    Date: 06-03-2010                                                                   T.HANUMANTHA RAO
                                                                                                     Tel 040-23402048
    (Note:  The technical views of Government experts presented in the Discussion Report(DR) of the State Government Advisory committee, are totally in variance with the concept and spirit of the alternative low barrages proposed by the author  on 26-10-2009 and also in the tabular statement (28-11-2009), the  Clarifications and the calculations (20-12-2009).  One of the reasons for the gap appears to be due to the fact that the Irrigation Engineering Officers who met the author initially had  promised to meet the author  later along with the relevant plans have not met him.  As a result a technically feasible, financially attractive and administratively superior design with far less submersions (& no human risk to 46 lakh lives due to dam break Tsunami type wave), is made out as a design that is exactly the opposite of what the author proposed as an alternative to Polavaram dam.  This is due to an inappropriate application of a technology which is in variance with the philosophy and concept of the Alternative Proposals (AP).  Technical details pertaining to these aspects and how the actual costs and submersion areas etc… would workout in the alternative proposals are briefly discussed below.)

    Number of Low barrages (3): The Concept of the alternative proposals(AP) is to obtain a usable (live) storage of 75 TMC at a number of low barrages, instead of at one place at Polavaram Dam, since the dam which among the other things involves in huge submersions as well as risks of dam break.  The storages created in these low barrages will entirely be ‘Live’ since water can be drawn upto bed level (Similar to flow in an unobstructed river) and hence there will be no dead storage or MDDL, as provided by Government experts in page 21 of the Discussion Report (DR).  There is no need to provide four prohibitively expensive barrages and obtain a storage of 222.225 TMC (Vide page 21 of DR) where as 75 TMC storage would be adequate (as contemplated in the original Polavaram Dam Proposal). These very big storages and high FRLs had contributed to the exorbitant cost of Rs.19,108.53 crores (Page 18 of DR).  If the Spirit and philosophy of alternative proposals are properly adopted by appropriate selection of Barrage sites, FRLs Storages and the cost of  proposals would workout to Rs.7143 crores (as described in detail in the later paras).  Again very high water levels (FRLs) than required were provided in page 21 Dr and this resulted in a huge submersion of a total of 345 villages, where as the high dam at Polavaram original proposal would submerge only 276 villages.  (Vide page 21 of DR). To put it mildly the designs worked out in the DR, lacks appreciation of the concepts and philosophy of the alternative proposals.  It has to be noted that only three low barrages (including Polavaram) were indicted in the tabular statement clarifications as against four calculated in the DR.  The proposal of Kunavaram barrage costing Rs.5,330 crores and submerging 202 villages (Vide page 21 of DR) has no place in the AP and has to be therefore deleted altogether.  The details of the barrages as provided in Dr and what these should be as per the concept of AP are discussed below.  As a result , it is now shown , how the cost as per the Alternative Proposals (Rs.7143 Crores) would be lesser than the cost of Original Polavaram (Rs.8713.09 crores) as well as Rs.19,108.53 Crores shown in DR Also the number of villages submerged as per the AP would be 72 no’s as against 276 no’s in the original Polavaram dam proposal as well as 345 shown in page 21 of Dr.  Generation of Hydropower as per AP is 1038 MW as against 201 MW shown in page 61 of Dr and 960MW of Original Polavaram proposal.  Any new concept will have problems in understanding in the initial stages and this alternative proposal is no exception to this.
    Polavaram Barrage:  Selection of site for a barrage is very important for technical reasons as well as economy.  This is possible only after a detailed investigation is done, keeping an eye on various possible alternative sites and their relative costs.  An improper site, though technically possible may result in the cost going up by two or three times more than an optimally selected site.  The cost of this lower barrage built upto maximum flood level is depicted in the DR as almost equal to the cost of a high dam provided in the original proposal.  Such a strange phenomenon should automatically lead to investigation of alternative economical sites for constructing the low barrage.  In the case of this low barrage, the site of the old dam proposal was selected in the DR.  At this site the barrage would be unduly long (3077 meters, vide page 21DR) This can be reduced to one third (say 1 Km long) by selecting a downstream site as indicated below.  For the original Polavaram Proposal, Constructing, concrete/masonry dam and providing spillway, Crest gates on the top of  dam are not possible in the river bed, since rocky foundations are not available at any reasonable depth in the river.  As such earthen dam was selected for the river portion and spillway located on the right bank where rocky strata is available.  In the case of a low barrage, since it will have to be designed as ‘Weirs on Sand’ principle (floating foundations) a suitable site on the downstream of the old proposal (at a distance of about 2.6km) and immediately down streams of the surplus course can be investigated for the low barrage site.  At this place, the river width from bank to bank is about 800 meters and about 1km long barrage can be constructed at this place.  The length and number of gates will have to be designed so as to get the required cross section area of the river under MFL conditions of 36 lakhs C/s discharge.  If the river width is not adequate for this purpose, the structure will have to be extended on either side and suitable approaches provided on the upstream and downstream sides.  16.48 meters depth of gates were provided in page 24 Dr.  This has to be increased to 20 meters depth so as to get the required cross section area, economise the design and keep sill of gates at bed level. 

    Foundation raft concrete for the piers, will have to be designed so as obtain sufficient anchorage required for these gates. The bottom of gates will have to be kept at the average bed level, in order to facilitate drawal of water upto the bed level (for Godavari delta Rabi crop). In other words when gates are opened the river would be flowing down naturally as earlier, as if there is no obstruction.  This stored water from top of gates upto bed level can also be pumped for the requirements of the Polavaram canals, during the non flood periods.  There is no need to provide dead storage by keeping MDDL at 28.956, as provided in page 21 DR  The assumption that water stored above this MDDL only (4.204 TMC) is available for pumping is not correct.  For calculation of pumping during the flood period, the water levels are considered as varying from 28.956 and 30.48 in the DR. During this flood flow period of over 4 months the water levels will have to be maintained at near FRL of 30.48 by suitably regulating the barrage gates and allowing the excess flows down the barrage.  Thus it may be seen that there is no need to pump stored water, as long as there are flood flows in the river and the entire 169.61 TMC  demand of Polavaram (Page 37 of final report June 2007) during Khariff season can be pumped when the river is in floods and water is then available at near FRLs.
    In the Polavaram Original proposals, the Rabi season demands of Godavari delta and Polavaram canals were contemplated to be met through the yields (flows in the river) and 75 TMC stored water.  In the Alternative proposals also, a similar method will have to be followed.  Stored water will have to be pumped from a level of 30.48 extending up to almost the bed level and to facilitate, this the suction foot valve will have to be kept at a level corresponding to the bed level in a depressed sump so as to avoid vortex problems.  The static head of pumping will than be increasing as the water levels fall from 30.48M to about 11.00 M  in the pond.  The quantity of water to be lifted from lower levels will be a fraction of the quantity of water to be lifted from higher levels and the actual power requirements to pump during January-May will have to be calculated on a weekly or fortnightly basis.  The installed pumping capacities (HP) to pump large quantities of water for Khariff Season requirements (from higher water levels) would be more than the required capacity to pump relatively a fraction quantity of water during the Rabi season (from the lower levels in the pond).
    The cost of alternative Polavaram barrage is estimated in page21 Dr as Rs.3415 crores almost the same as the original Polavaram dam proposals which comprise of a high earth cum rock fill dam, separate spillway, bridge, lengthy surplus course over 3km long etc. (Rs.3630 crores) With proper selection of site for the alternative proposals, the earth dam in the river will get replaced by a gated structure and there will be no necessity for a separate spillway (similar to Kantalapalli and Dummagudem which are now under construction).  In such a case, the cost of barrage as per AP will get reduced to about ½ to 1/3rd of the original Polavaram dam proposals (e.g. cost of Kantalapalli barrage is Rs.880 crores).  The main cost will be due to gates of Size 18M x 20M, Rs.650 crores (based on figures given in page 26 of DR) 4 rows of 12m depth piles for 1km length of barrage (1000 x 4 x 12 x Rs.5900) Rs.28 crores, Spillway bridge 1km long Rs.8 crores (page 27 of DR) piers Rs77 crores (Page 27 Dr) and adding for all other items like aprons concrete, steel etc. (On the basis of Kantalapalli barrage) Rs.637 crores, the total cost of the alternate barrage would then workout to Rs.1400 crores, as against Rs.3415 crores provided in page21 DR. The topographical problem of aligning off take canals on either side will no more be an issue in the case of the down steam site for the low barrages of AP water can be drawn and pumped directly into the cisterns and the gravity canals can start immediately from the cisterns. There is no need to provide pumping mains on either side due to the advantage of plain terrain conditions being available on both the sides of the structure.  The canals can take off directly from the barrage structure without any need for separate pumping mains.
    A gross storage capacity of 21.944 TMC is indicated in the design of DR (page 21) As pr the reservoir capacity tables (page 39, June 2007 report) the storage capacity at the proposed FRL 30.48(100ft) is 36.082 TMC.  Since the Kunavaram barrage proposal is not there in the AP design, the interception of storage due to Bhadrachalam & Sabari barrages as designed in the AP would be very low, sine the river bed levels at these places will be close to the FRL of 30.48.  If these interceptions in storage are considered as 1.082 TMC (to be actually calculated based on submersion area contour map) the storage available for usage would then be 35TMC and not 4.204 TMC as provided in page 21 Dr.  The reasons for this (as already discussed above) are that water stored and available up to bed level can either be drawn to the down stream side or pumped into canals and that there is no need to maintain an MDL of 28.956.  Gross and live storage capacities in the cases of Bhadrachalam and Sabari (Chatte Kunta) barrages were rightly shown as the same (vie page 21 of DR) and the same concept will have to be followed for this Polavaram barrage also.  Villages that would be submerged under this barrage at FRL 30.48 are noted as 66 nos in the DR (page21) out of this 32 villages are stated to be below FRL 30.48 M level and balance 34 villages above 30.48M level and extending upto 42.50 M (page 34 and 35 of DR) villages situated upto 12 M above FRL are shows under the list of submergible villages for the adduced reason that the ayacutdars lose approach to their fields due to water stored in the barrage.  The villagers can be provided with detoured cart tracks to approach their fields, and for this reason, they need not be asked to vacate their villages situated far above the FRL.  As such, the number of villages that will get submerged upto FRL 30.48 can be considered as 30 (vide page 129 of June 2007 report) and not 66 no’s as indicated in page 21 DR

    Kunavaram barrage:  As discussed in para 2 above this structure has no plae in the design of alternative proposals. As such the cost of Rs.5330 crores and submersion of 202 villages and other issues noted in the DR will automatically get eliminated.
    Bhadrachalam barrage:  In the DR, the FRL of this barrage is provided as 55.65M in order to obtain a gross and live storage capacities of 41.83 TMC & 41.63 TMC, respectively, submerging 58 villages.  There is no need to provide such high FRLFRL and submerge so many villages since it is enough to obtain a storage of about 25 TMC for the purpose f Alternative proposals.  As such if FRL of about 50.75 (with 20 M depth gates) is considered for this barrage t obtain a storage of about 25 TMC, the number of villages that would then get submerged, would get reduced to 26 that is less than half proposed in page21 DR.  The possibility of further reducing the number of villages under submersion by extending dykes on either side of barrage upto high ground (preventing outflanking) will have to be examined.  However this has to be actually worked out based upon submersion area contours.  Appropriate level and location of barrage site will have to be worked  out, so as to obtain a storage of about 25 TMC.  Length of barrage is indicated as 1858M in page 21 DR.  By an appropriate selection of site at a place either near the upstream kink or near the downstream kink, this length can be reduced to about 1100M.  Also for this purpose a site where bed level would be 30.50 can be investigated.  The cost of this barrage with reduced FRL from55.65 to 50.75 and reduced length would be about Rs.1200 crores, as against Rs.2970 crores provided in page 21 DR.
    Sabari Barrage:  As per DR page 21 a barrage at chatte Kunta on Sabari river was proposed where bed level is 30.155.  An FRL of 53.31 with gross and live storage of 17.75 TMC submersion of 19 villages and length of structure as 800 M were proposed at a cost of Rs.1180 crores (Page 27 of DR).  The FRL of 53.31 will have to be necessarily reduced to 44.72 (i.e.1M less than FRL of Old Polavaram dam proposals). Any increase in FRL (above 45.72) is unthinkable at this stage, as it would attract interstate problems with the upper states.  The alternative proposals should aim at solving interstate problems and not enhancing and hence an FRL of 44.72 is highly desirable to gain acceptance of the upper states.  The barrage site may be shifted to the downstream side, about half way between the state border and Kunavaram, where the bed level may be about 26.72M (18M depth gates) and width of rivers is less.  Since the FRL is drastically reduced from 53.31 to 44.72 the submersible villages will get reduced from 19 to 0 within Andhra Pradesh (page 50DR).  Also there will be no submersion of any village in the two upper states.  It may be noted in this context that more than 17 villages would get submerged in the upper states as per original dam proposals and the main objection of these states for Polavaram project is on account of this.  When site is shifted to the down stream side some villages here would get submerged.  The aim is to select an appropriate site, which gives storage of about 17 TMC with FRL at 44.72 and also limits the overall submersion of villages to less than 16 Dykes will have to be constructed on either side of barrage and taken upto high ground to prevent out taking (as indicated in above para). The cost of such a barrage with 18 M depth gates can be brought down from Rs.1180 crores to 900 crores by adopting the above measures (such as reduction in FRL from 53.31 M to 44.72M and reduction in length)
    Summary of costs submersion and power:  From the above paras, it can be seen that the cost of the three barrages at Polavaram, down stream of Bhadrachalam and Sabari as per the alternative proposals, would work out to Rs.3500 crores(1400+1200+900) as against Rs.12895 crores indicated in page 18 of DR.  The total number of villages that would be submerged under these three barrages as per the AP would be 72 Nos (30+26+16) as against 345 shown in DR and 276 no’s in original Polavaram dam proposal.  The total usable storage under these three barrages as per AP would be 79 TMC (35+25+17+2 due to storage between old dam site and proposal down stream site at Polavaram) as against 75 TMC required under the original Polavaram dam proposal.

    In the comparison of costs (Page 18 of DR) the cost of original Polavaram project was indicated as Rs.8713.09 crores and that of the AP as Rs.19,108.53crores.  The details of alternative proposals will have to be corrected as indicated below, incorporating the changes indicated in the above paras.  Item I will get reduced from Rs.12,895 crores to Rs.3,500 crores.  Item2 can be the same as per original Polavaram proposals (Rs.940 crores and Rs.1800 crores), since the same amount of hydro power under alternative proposals would be generated.  Thus there would not be any decrease in costs(as explained in the power calculations). Item3 & 4 fro R&R, LA & Forests (Rs.2343.09 crores) provided under original Polavaram proposals will get reduced to about 1/4th  i.e Rs.600 crores in view of the submersion areas in AP getting reduced about 1/4th of the original dam proposal.  The item5 regarding pumping mains etc. Rs.1543 crores (page 58 DR) provided in AP will have to be reduced to Rs.303 crores as there will be no pumping mains as explained under para 3 above.
    As against 182 MW power required for pumping provided in the DR, only 54 MW power is needed (as per calculations in AP due to reduction in ayacut).  For these reasons item 1 of the statement (page 58 DR) will get reduced to Rs.60 crores and items3 & 4 reduced to 243 crores and  thus a provision of Rs.303 crores will be adequate for this.  The total cost of Alternative proposals including Hydro power component would then work out to Rs.7143 crores (Rs.3500+940+1800+600+303=7143) as against Rs.19,108.53 crores provided in DR.  When compared to the original Polavaram project cost of Rs.8713.09 crores, the cost of AP would be cheaper by Rs.1570.09 crores.  Since the realistic submergence cost is expected to be about Rs.6000 crores, much higher than Rs.2343.09 crores provided in the original proposal, the actual cost of alternative proposal would be cheaper by more than Rs.4000 crores when compared to the original dam proposal.

    Power Generation:  It is mentioned in Page 60 of DR that 201 MW Hydro Power can be generated in the barrages proposal under alternative proposal as against 960 MW in Original Polavaram proposal. Details for this are not furnished.  As per calculations appended, the peak power generation would be 1038 MW (Bhadrachalam 423MW+Sabari 192MW+Polavaram423MW).  The peak heads at Bhadrachalam  would be 20.27M (50.75 -30.48), Sabari14.24M (44.72-30.48) and Polavaram 20M (30.48-10.48). These heads will be decreasing as the flood flow increases over a limit and virtually becomes zero under the Maximum flood flow conditions, since there will be no water level differences on the upstream and down stream sides at that time.  For example, if there is a flow of about 10 lakh cusecs in the river at Polavaram, water levels upstream of barrage would be maintained at about near FRL conditions of 30.48 and the flood would be allowed to flow through regulated opening of barrage gates.  Depending upon the river cross section, slope etc., water level on the down stream of barrage would then rise (say from 10.48 to 16.48) and the head would get reduced from 20M to 14M.  If the flood discharge gets reduced from 10 lakh cusecs to 1 lakh cusecs, the hydraulic head would increase from 14M to about 20M.  However there would be no hydro-power generation, during the few days of maximum flood flows occurring once in 1000 years.  This is due to no afflux during those rare events, when all the barrages gates are fully opened.  The actual power generation on a daily basis in a water year, will have to be calculated based on the discharges in the river.  This is similar to Hydro-power generation calculations in  a dam where water levels vary from MDDL (for power to FRL)

    To assume that it is not possible to generate power in a barrage during the flood period because there would be no afflux is therefore not correct, for the reasons explained above.  Additional hydro-power units can be added on either side of the three barrages, and more power generated at a later date.

    Power consumed for lifting water into canals: The power charges to lift water into Polavaram canals will have to cover lifting of water required for diversion to Krishna basin, domestic and industrial needs of Visakhapatnam area and supply of water to an ayacut of 2.5lakhs acres under Polavaram project.  These would be as per calculations given in the alternative proposals and not as indicated in the DR.  The reasons for reduction of ayacut from 7.2 lakhs acres to 2.5 lakh acres are discussed below.  The reasons why cost of power charges would not be a liability on the project are also explained in these calculations (appended for ready reference).  Pumping additional quantities of water for Uttara Andhra Sujala Sravanthi or any other such project would be a charge on those projects and not on Polavaram project as explained below.
    Polavaram Ayacut:  In the clarifications given on AP dated 20-12-2009, the manner how the ayacut would get reduced from 7.20 lakh acres to 2.5 lakh acres were elaborated.  In the DR it was mentioned that 75 TMC storage is essential for the purpose of irrigating 7.20 lakhs acres under Polavaram project and 10.20 lakh acres under Godavari delta (Kharif and Rabi seasons) etc.  In the alternative proposals also, provision for this 75 TMC is made and there is no deduction in this.  However for cost of pumping equipment and pumping charges, realistic ayacut (2.5 lakh acres) under Polavaram project and all other demands (e.g. Krishna, Industrial, Godavari delta etc.) are retained without any reduction.

    There is no need to delink Yeleru ayacut of 67,600 acres from Yeleru project and supply water to this area from Polavaram canals, so as to utilize this extent of water for the proposed new ayacut of Yeleru project lying above the Polavaram command.  The existing system of Yeleru aycut in Polavaram geographical command (67,600 acres) can continue under Yeleru project and water can be supplied to Yeleru ayacut above Polavaram command by pumping water from Polavaram canals and the scheme can be designed accordingly.  Polavaram left canal has adequate capacity for supplying the required additional discharge.
    The total ayacut of 2,77,234 acres (page 51 DR) is shown as Visakhapatnam district (1,48,202 acres) Krishna district (61,901 acres) and West Godavari district (67,131 acres).  This will have to be analyzed with regard to what extent of area is already under irrigation through public lift irrigation schemes, tanks etc. where government funds were already spent.  A study has indicated that the area without any irrigation facility and where crops are raised under rain fed conditions, would be less than 1.8 lakh acres and that this much area only would need irrigation under Polavaram project.  Considered that private lift irrigation systems (e.g. tube wells, dug wells etc.) will have to be supplied water from Polavaram project and that M.I tanks ayacut in the command has to be deleted, this ayacut would get reduced from 2,77,234 acres to about 2.5 lakh acres.  It may be noted that ayacut under M.I tanks was deleted from the project commands in the cases of Nagarjuna sagar and SRSP.  The same procedure can be followed for Polavaram project also.
    With regards to the existing lift irrigation projects covering an ayacut of 3,75,166 acres (Page 51DR) it is mentioned that the “life of some of the existing L.I scheme is already over and the life of other schemes will be over by the time Polavaram project is completed”.  It is also stated that “since they will have to be abandoned, there is a need to supply this ayacut of 3,75,166 acres under Polavaram project”.  Pushkara, Chagalnadu and Tadipudi L.I schemes comprising of 3,23,126  acres do not come under this category to be abandoned since they were also taken up for construction along with the Polavaram project at almost the same time or slightly earlier.  In fact these schemes are still under construction, partly completed and about to be completed.  With regard to the other four L.I. schemes comprising 52,040 acres there is no need to abandon them for the reason that their life is over and then supply water from Polavaram project.  Their life time can be extended by repairs and renewals where ever needed.  Many of the present major lift irrigation project under Jalayagnam are lift schemes and they cannot be abandoned after a life time of the pumping equipment of say 15 years.  By appropriate renewals, whenever needed their life times can be extended and brought on par with other major gravity flow projects.  The cost of renewals will have to be included in the maintenance cost and would not form part of capital cost.
    From the above discussion, it can be inferred that the Polavaram project will have to supply water to an ayacut not exceeding 2.5 lakh acres. With  repard to Uttarandhra Sujala Sravanthi, Rudramkota irrigation and other lift irrigation projects from Polavaram canals (Page 59 DR) the cost of pumping equipment and pumping charges for lifting Godavari water will have to be borne under the respective schemes, as they cannot be a charge on the Polavaram project. They are not existing schemes and they would take shape only after Polavaram project is constructed.  They have to be designed on the basis of the available conditions in Polavaram project.  Also this lift from Godavari river would be relatively minor when compared to the big lifts required to pump Polavaram water to much higher areas.  Hence these costs will have to be deleted for purposes of comparison.  There is no need to abandon the existing L.I projects as discussed above. Such an action would result in wastage of public funds, since the civil works (such as pump houses, structures along pumping mains, immovable structures, cisterns etc..) executed at a high cost would all go to waste.

     Interstate aspects and approvals for alternative proposals:  In page 11 of DR it is mentioned that in the case of the alternate proposals, fresh DPR will have to be prepared and clearances will have to be obtained, apart from fresh consultations and consent of the upper states and that all these would delay the project. The correct picture is indicated below. Since the alternative proposals are simple barrages, it may take 3 to 6 months time to prepare the Detailed Project Report and in the mean while all the required clearances can be obtained from the government of India.  Upper states would gladly welcome the low barrages proposals as no villages in their state would get submerged.  It may be noted that these states stalling the Polavaram project for the past several years on the main ground that more than 17 villages in their states would get submerged under the original Polavaram proposal. The alternative proposals would get completed much earlier than the dam since the structures are also simple and small.  There was no progress on the construction of the dam for the past 3 to 4 years for one reason or the other.  If the past experience of Orissa Government in stalling the Vamsadhara stge-II and Jhanjhavati projects for the past over two decades is any guide, there appears to be no hope for completing Polavaram dam as per original Polavaram in the near future.  Orissa government has already taken up this issue to the Supreme Court and it is also reported that certain clearances are not yet given to Polavaram dam.  In the case of these alternative proposals which give the same benefits of original Polavaram dam, all these stumbling blocks would automatically get eliminated and project completed very quickly at a lesser cost among the other several advantages elaborated above.  Even though it may take six months time to call for tenders for alternative proposals, this may have tobe viewed in the present context of yet to call for revised tenders fro dam, spillway, power blocks etc…
    Navigation: Though navigational facilities are provided in the original dam proposal (page 9 of DR) this navigational canal has to be taken through a tunnel (about 1.0km long) and as such small launches and boats only can ply.  There is no scope for sea going vessels to pass through such small canals and tunnels. In the alternative proposals, sea going vessels can be taken through the barrage locks and this would ultimately lead to the economic development of the whole Godavari area upto SRSP(upto 650 km distance) similar to what happened in St.Lawrence River (Sea Way), Mississippi etc in the USA .

    Such economic development of Godavari basin through navigation of sea-going vessels will one for all get deprived, if Polavaram dam is executed as originally proposed, resulting in great loss to the nation.
                                                                                                      (T.HANUMANTHA RAO)
    Encl: Design details  : 2 pages
              L.S. Sketch       :  1 page
              Extracts of DR          24 pages
              Extracts of June 2007, Report 3 pages
    1. Discharges in canals (left & Right) in kharif season:
     (a)  Ayacut (total) = 2.5 lakh acres @a duty of 75 ac/cusec discharge= 2,50,000   = 3333 cusecs
     (b) Krishna Diversion in 120 days = 80 TMC
           Q in 1 day = 80/120 = 2/3
          @ 1 TMC/day discharge                = 11,574 c/s
          2/3 TMC/day discharge                  = 11,574 x 2/3 = 7,716 cusecs
    (c) Domestic & Industrial water
          365 days = 24 TMC
          1 day = 24/365 TMC Q = 24/365 x 11574 =761 Cusecs
          Therefore Total Discharge in both the canals = a+b+c= 11,810 cusecs
                                                                         or 11810/35.316 = 334.5 Cumecs
         (Note: during the non Kharif season there will be pumping mainly for (c) requirement)
    2. HP of pump sets required for both left & Right canals:-
         FSL Left Canal  =40.54 m
        Water level in barrage (Allowing 1m lower level during 4 month flood season) = 29.48m
        Therefore Static head = 11.06
         Adding Friction losses @ 10% = 1.10, total Head = 12.16m
        HP = 334.5 x 1000 x 12.16 /75 x 100/76 (eff. of motor  95%  x  eff ump 80% = 76%  )
       =  71,360HP or 71360 x 0.746 = 53235 kw or 54MW
    a)      Total max discharge in canals = 11810 cusecs or 334.5 cumecs
    b)      Total head=12.16m; HP=71.360; KW= 53235 (54 MW)
    c)      Maximum pumping would be in 4 months (120 days or 2840 hrs)
    d)      In the other days of the year, pumping for Krishna delta and drinking water will be less and power consumed during this period can be considered as 30% of the peak power consumed in 120 days.
    KW hrs consumed in 120 days or 2880 hrs = 54,000 x 2880 = 15,552 x10(power 4)
    KW hrs consumed during the other days in the year (say about 30% of above)
    =4,448 x 10 (power 4) or  = 20,000 x 10 (power 4 ) or 2 x 10 (power 8)
    Cost at Rs.1.50 per unit = 2 x 10 (power 8) x 1.5=3 x 10 (power 8) or Rs.30 crores
    Thus the annual notional power consumption cost=Rs.30 crores.  This would be a notional profit to the irrigation Department, as hydro-power is produced with capital and maintenance cost borne by the irrigation Department.
    1.Barrage D/s of Bhadrachalam:
     Q= 1,00,000c/s or 2832 cumecs on an average for peak power
    H=20m (water level differences between U/s and D/s 50.75-30.48 = 20.27 or 20m) M.W.=cum x Head/75 x eff x 0.746 = 2832 x20/75 x 0.75×0.746=423 MW
    Very large discharge axial flow turbines will have to be used.
    2. Barrage across Sabari: Q = 65000 c/s or 1841 cum and H = 14m;
        44.72-30.48:14.24 or 14m MW = 1841 x 14/75 x 0.75 x 0.746 = 192 MW
    3. Low barrage at Polavaram;  Q = 1 lakh c/s or 2832 cum & H = 30.48-10.48 = 20m 
        MW= 2832 x20/75 x 0.75 x 0.746 = 423 MW
    4. Total Hydro power = 423 + 192+423 = 1038 MW

    • Air says:

      I am not a technical guy. But If I am not wrong this design is rejected by national commission. And main design flaw as per lot of engineers on polvaram dam is its outflow is not matching with the inflow specially in flood sitivations. Even that is told by K.L Rao. But as per below link  K.L rao is ok with Mr. Dumn was even accpted by praksam CM at that time . British thought it is best place to build a project to tap the river. if project has flaw it can be corrected may be by best engineers in the worlds. at least with what that Dumn trying to do.But I never find any source what is the Design of that Dumn/K.L raois.  Any how see the last statement.  if it is true with pulichintala it will be true for polavaram because when cotton did he came up with the best.

    • satya says:

      you could have simply given the link of this guy blog which I guess is known to many from a long time ( rather than copy-pasting the entire posts in a 'comment' when it is too long. I read these articles but there are flaws. Infact as Air said alternative proposals are rejected. btw.. hav a look at this video..

      I am trying to find a link which I read earlier which had answers to the above article.

  21. Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

    In Adddition to Mr. Satya's Link I am sending few more for better understanding:


    • satya says:

      Ahh.. Raj News? What you want to prove here? Come on Chandra Mohan… Dont try to bluff yourself. Even I hesitated to give TV9 video tried to find the other link that I mentioned in previous post. I have given it only because in that video someone from Telangana "AGREED" that questions raised by hanumantha rao ( Telangana irrigation exper..) were answered and also it mentions explicitly that alternate designs will increase the budget with less returns. Also it will cause lands in MH will get submerged and it is very difficult to convince that state than orissa.
      Also Its a very wrong perception of people that polavaram is for 3rd crop and to stabilize krishna delta, another false propoganda by many. The diversion of 80 TMC to krishna delta will give ample benefits to the upland areas where the water in nagarjuna sagar and srisailam can be used in Nalgonda and Rayalaseema. (See from 6:26

      btw.. do you want to say, RAJ news have more intelligentsia (like Pro. Jayasankar and desapathi) than CWC?
      Reg. Hindu link, I challenge you name a single project that didn't cause displacement and submergence of the land?
      is sriram sagar built without any submergence in maharashtra? what about ichampally? dont be so hypocraitical dude. it seems u r more hatred towards andhra than ur love towards tribals.

  22. Chandra Mohan Nellutla says:

      Laugh out Loud Mr. Satya at your discovery. You are free to come out with  intellect opinions of your choice  but better not blame Prof. Jayashanker, Desapathi or someone else for that matter. Satya, You have blind folded your eyes and  everytime you see hear that you cannot digest you start crying on few  Telangana folks. Atleast  samaikya vaadis like you should refrain from shedding hatred ( You are not a Pratyaikya Vaadi). Dont Cry on Raj news, that shows your inability to tolerate its existence.
    It would be better you confine yourself to the debate subject  rather than other provoking things.
    Reagrding my opinion, Yes Raj news is doing a wonderful job in countering the lies of Andhra Media.

    • satya says:

      Prof. Jayasankar and Desapathi? I will blame and continue to do so because they are liers.we have proved many times in this blog. For me there is no need to cry on any telangana folks.. infact its they who cried in the name of caste on me (check in previous posts). Me among the many bloggers here has given the links of TRS report, jayasankar speeches, bhargava committee report, presidential order, 610 GO website to have a meaningful discussion from seperatists.

      reg. polavaram, what are ur objections on the project? submergence of tribal lands or papikondalu or dam safety? The last two things should not be a matter of concern for telanganites. wrt design, it is CWC which approved the design. do we need to take the approval of irrigation expert jayasankar or kcr?
      reg. submergence, I put a straight question to u to show any project that didn't cause submergence…? u didn't answer. are telangana projects built without any submergence in other states?

      I talk least on those so called social activists like medha pathkar or bala gopal, though I dont question their integrity. See today the benifits of sardar sarovar dam which is able to give 20 hours uninterrupted electricity to villages in gujarat, which is opposed by these activists. There is no denying on people who lost lands and livelyhood should be the 1st benefiters of the project.

      I dont have any respect towards any channels (except etv2) in telugu media. If u ignore my comments on tv9 and ntv but pick out those on raj news it shows ur blind foldedness… not mine.
      Raj news is really doing a job that no media did ever in AP. like if someone write a book on telangana movement, just telecast a cooked story that the person have 200 crores worth investments in hyderabad etc..

  23. Prakash says:

    Just chanced to visit this page. I believe "Chakravarthy says: October 27, 2010 at 4:24 pm" answers your question on submergence better than any one else can.
    "Mega irrigation projects are no longer a panacea they once used to be. They wreck the environment, they result in large-scale displacement of people and property, they require huge investments with questionable returns. Small-scale irrigation is a far more effective solution, but government officers and politicians are usually not keen on those schemes, since they can't make the same kind of money they make on large-scale projects."

    • satya says:

      There is nothing to disagree on minor irrigation. Tank irrigation is always the #1 option to go for. And reg. the submergence, even I wrote that 'the people who lost their lands should be 1st benefiters of the project and should be compensated adequately.

  24. Prakash says:

    Satya, Nalamotu argued against mega projects while you are suggesting fair compensation. I support the blogger on this point.
    Not sure where Comrade Nallutla is coming from. He appears to oppose Polavaram but his reasons are unclear to me. I also did not see his views on Pranahita–Chevella (which Nalamotu, you & I all opposed)

  25. Someone primarily assist to produce badly articles We would declare. Right here is the new I personally visited your web site web site therefore considerably? My partner and i astonished together with the evaluation you made to generate this specific set up unbelievable. Fantastic activity!

  26. Funny Halloween Maternity Shirts

    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  27. says:

    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  28. Click on

    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  29. says:

    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots


    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  31. I appreciate how well you have actually shared your
    monitorings in this article. I think that educational short articles ought
    to be more like yours. Your short article had character as well as is persuasive.


    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  33. article source

    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots


    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  35. Going Here says:

    Going Here

    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

  36. Hgsny.Info says:


    Shouldn’t TRS Mourn the September 17th Liberation Day? « My Telugu Roots

Leave a Reply to Prakash