State Division – Federalism by Dr. JP Narayan

The October 3 decision of the Union Government to divide Andhra Pradesh and the subsequent developments raise important questions about federalism in India and the future of the nation.  Several states have been formed after 1950, but this is the first occasion when a major state is sought to be divided without the consent of the state legislature, and without a negotiated settlement among the stake-holders and various regions, and in the face of fierce opposition from vast sections of the public.



All major federal democracies have incorporated in their Constitutions the provision that a state cannot be divided or merged with another state without its prior consent.  This is the essence of federalism.  The United States, Australia, Germany, Canada and Switzerland follow this model.  Similarly Brazil, Argentina and Mexico follow the same pattern.  Even a unitary country like Britain, while dealing with regional assemblies of Wales and Scotland, follows such a federal principle in practice.



Indian Constitution-makers gave considerable thought to the issue of formation of new states and reorganization of states while drafting the Constitution.   Article 3 of the draft constitution prepared by Constitutional Advisor (Sir B N Rau) in Oct 1947 reads as follows:


“The Federal Parliament may, with the previous consent of the Legislature of every Province and the Legislature of every India State whose boundaries are affected thereby, by Act-

  1. create a new unit;
  2. increase the area of any unit;
  3. diminish the area of any unit;
  4. alter the boundaries of any unit;
  5. alter the name of any unit;

and may with the like consent make such incidental and consequential provisions by such Act as it may deem necessary or proper.


2) When any such Act creates a new unit, then as from the date of commencement of the Act that unit shall be deemed to be included in the First Schedule to this Constitution, and when provision is made by any such Act for the alteration of the area or the boundaries or the name of any unit, then as from the date of commencement of the Act any reference in that schedule to that unit shall be construed as a reference to the unit as so altered.”


Later, The Drafting Committee revised it with the following proviso:


“Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless –  


  1. Where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the boundaries or name of any state or States for the time being specified in Part-I of the First Schedule, the views of the Legislature of the State, or as the case may be, of each of the States, both with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill and with respect to the provisions thereof have been as ascertained by the President; and


  1. Where such proposal affects the boundaries or name of any State or States for the time being specified in Part-III of the First Schedule, the previous consent of the State, or as the case may be, of each of the States to the proposal has been obtained.”



However, the Drafting Committee and Constituent Assembly were keenly aware of the circumstances prevailing in the country at that time.  India witnessed partition of the country, accompanied by unprecedented violence and bloodshed, and the largest forced mass migration in history.  In addition, there were several kinds of States – Part A, B and C, and there was need to reorganize all the states and fully integrate the 552 princely states.  If the consent of every State or Unit was a pre-condition for altering boundary of a State, reorganization of Indian States could easily have been mired in disputes, and would have been a prolonged and excruciatingly difficult exercise, delaying and hampering the nation-building efforts.  Therefore they wanted to prevent Parliamentary paralysis while reorganizing the States.  Consequently, the final text of Article 3 as promulgated provided for the President’s recommendation and ascertaining of the views of the State(s) concerned.



Subsequently, in 1955, on the eve of linguistic reorganization of States, Article 3 has been amended (5th Amendment) to provide for a timeframe for expression of the views of the legislature, with a provision for the President allowing a further period of time on request.  Clearly, this timeframe was incorporated to ensure that the impending States’ reorganization could be carried out smoothly without unreasonable delays.



Experience has shown that our nation-builders were wise in drafting the Constitution to suit our requirements.   More important, successive governments have been very mature and wise in applying Article 3 and in dealing with States.  While prior consent of the State was not necessary under the Constitution, in practice every State has been formed with prior consent, and in most cases after a detailed, impartial examination of the issues by an independent commission and based on its recommendations.  Only in the case of the Punjab, there was no legislature at the time of dividing the State in 1966, but a broad consensus among all stake-holders was available and there was no opposition to division of Punjab.  Also the division was carried out based on the settled linguistic principle, and a Parliamentary Committee examined the issue of boundaries of the new states and other related issues, and gave recommendations which were implemented in their entirety. 



So far, the Parliament and Governments have acted with restraint and wisdom in dealing with boundaries of States and formation of new States. They rejected the notion that anything could be done to alter the boundaries of States provided it is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.  While prior consent of state legislature is not mandatory, in practice care has been taken to obtain the consent of legislature, or to act only on the express request of the State.  The 1956 reorganization of States was based on the fundamental principle of language, and there was broad national consensus on the issue. 


The States’ Reorganization Commission in its report (1955) in Para 107 noted wisely:


“Any measure of reorganization which is likely to create tensions and disharmony must weaken the sense of unity among the people of India and should not, therefore be countenanced”



The SRC further stated in Para 111 (iii) as follows:


“But while the building of contented units, strong enough to bear their share of the burden, is an important objective, it is no less necessary that the links between the units and the nation should be equally strong so that under the stress of regional loyalties, the Union does not fall apart”.



The Commission went on to caution in Para 112 as follows:


“It follows that, while internal adjustments at State level are to be desired, it is imperative to ensure that these do not lead to maladjustments at the inter-state and national level. From the point of view of national unity, therefore, reorganization has to aim at a two-fold objective:

  1. Firm discouragement of disruptive sentiments such as provincialism or linguistic fanaticism; and
  2. Consistent with national solidarity, provision of full scope for the unhampered growth of the genius of each group of people”



It is this maturity and wisdom that served us well over the past six decades. As the Sarkaria Commission noted in 1987 in paras 2.29.06 and 2.29.07:


“In all, during the last 37 years, 20 Acts have been enacted by Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 to bring changes in the areas, boundaries and names of States ……


“It is noteworthy that these legislations were passed either with the consent of the States affected, or on the recommendations of a Commission or Committee set up for the purpose…. Questions relating to readjustment of boundaries of some states still remain unsettled. The need for Articles 3 and 4 in the present form has not disappeared”.



Clearly, Articles 3 & 4 in their present form are enabling provisions empowering the Parliament to act in an exceptional situation when national interest warrants it, or to settle marginal boundary disputes between States when they are recalcitrant and all efforts to reconcile their differences and arrive at a negotiated settlement have failed. The framers of the Constitution had not intended to give Parliament arbitrary powers to redraw boundaries of States at will; nor did successive Parliaments and Governments act unilaterally or arbitrarily without genuine consent, broad consensus or negotiated settlement.



Even after 1987, in every case of new State formation, the prior consent of the Legislature of the affected State was obtained, and only then did the Parliament act. Even in respect of Pondicherry and Goa when it was a Union Territory, the wishes of the people and their representatives were respected, though neither consent of the Union Territory is needed, not is it necessary to ascertain the views of a legislature of the Union Territory. The broader principle of federalism and willing consent of the constituent units and their people has always been deemed to be necessary before a state is formed or a territory is merged, unless overwhelming national interest demands action by Parliament. The same procedure has been scrupulously observed while creating the new States of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh in 2000.



Dr Ambedkar stated in his reply to the debate on States’ rights in the Constituent Assembly as follows:


“The second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override the States. This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in mind. The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature of the Constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to emergencies only”.



It is precisely this spirit that informed the actions of Union Government and Parliament over the past six decades. Such admirable wisdom and restraint have been evidence in respect of formation of states on every occasion. There were certainly blemishes in application of Article 356 earlier. But over the past two decades Indian federalism has matured a great deal more. The Supreme Court verdict in Bommai Case (1994) made Article 356 more or less a “dead letter” as Ambedkar hoped. Though the Finance Commission’s recommendations are not binding on the Parliament and Government, the recommendations of every Finance Commission in respect of devolution of resources have been accepted and implemented fully over the past six decades. Since the report of the Tenth Finance Commission, there has been greater transparency in devolution, with most of the tax revenues of the Union being treated as the divisible pool, and a fixed proportion of it is shared with states, and this proportion is decided by the Finance Commission from time to time. With liberalization and expansion of economic freedom, States are now more in control of their economic future. With the decline in importance of new public sector investments and reduced political control of such investments, there is little scope for discrimination or favouritism in the Union’s dealings with States. As a result of all these developments, India is moral federal in nature today than ever before in our history as a Republic.



These developments do not mean that states can act as they please; nor does it mean that their territorial integrity is inviolable. Clearly, there is one nation and one citizenship, and territorial integrity of the nation is paramount. However, within that overarching framework, States too exercise limited sovereignty, and federal spirit informs the operation of our Constitution. The Constitution never intended to make India a unitary country with States functioning as municipalities, and their very survival as political entities dependent on the will and whim of the Union Government. Nor did the actual operation of our Constitution over the past 63 years suggest a de facto unitary State. In fact, federalism has been deepening in India. This is in keeping with global trends. Even a unitary country without written Constitution like the UK is becoming a federal country, with regional legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising considerable power. Even Sri Lanka is now attempting to institutionalize a federal model to accommodate the aspirations of Tamil-speaking people. Pakistan, despite decades of turbulence and dictatorship, preserved its federal structure.



Our settled constitutional law practice in respect of States’ formation can be summed up as follows:



New States are formed, or boundaries of existing states are altered only with the consent of the affected States. Only in exceptional situations of national emergency or overwhelming national interest would Parliament be called upon to act on its own without the consent of States. When there are strong popular demands for division of a state or altering the boundaries of a state, consent must be the guiding principle as a general rule. However, when there is polarization and serious divergence of views, patient negotiation and adjustment and fair reconciliation through a process of give and take should be the norm.  The Parliament would ordinarily act only after such a consensus and negotiated settlement are arrived at.  Only in extreme and compelling circumstances, when unity of India or its security is at stake, or overwhelming national interest demands adjustment of boundaries, would Parliament act without the consent of States affected. In redrawing boundaries of any State, Parliament would act at all times with great restraint and circumspection.



The Punchi Commission on Centre-State Relations in its report (2010) in para 4.2.02 stated as follows:


“In practice it is rarely possible for the Parliament to ignore the views of the States.  The Central government, in effect, cannot concede to the demands of regional groups/communities for a separate State unless such a proposal is received from the State(s) in which these groups are currently located.”



This principle can be slightly amended based on the experience relating to Uttar Pradesh.  On Nov 23, 2011, a few months before the State Legislative Assembly elections were due, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed a resolution seeking trifurcation of the State.  Despite the State’s consent, the President, the Union Government, and the Parliament chose not to act, and for good reason.  The Assembly resolution was clearly for reasons of political expediency to gain short-term electoral advantage, and was passed weeks before the general election was due.  Clearly, States cannot be divided for temporary electoral advantage of one party or the other.  If there is no informed consent, and if broad consensus among all regions is not clearly manifest, division of States for short-term electoral gains will lead to anarchy, and will seriously undermine our federalism, and indeed the unity and integrity of the nation itself. 



The UP episode demonstrates that the settled principle now is that the Union will not ordinarily act without the State’s consent.  Even when the affected State consents to altering its boundaries, the Union reserves the right to reject it on broader national considerations.  In other words, in order to alter the status quo in respect of boundaries of States, ordinarily consent of affected states would be necessary.  But a State’s request for altering the status quo need not be granted unless the Union is convinced that the broader national interest is served by such a decision. 



Even colonial rulers paid a heavy price by acting precipitately without the consent of all stake-holders.  The partition of Bengal was effected by the then Viceroy Lord Curzon, against the wishes of large segments of population. There might well have been sound administrative reasons for such a partition; but the consent of people affected was not obtained, and a consensus was not arrived at.  People suspected that it was a deliberate ploy to divide the national movement and sow seeds of communal disaffection, and rebelled against it.  As a result, the national movement gained great momentum, the chasm between the colonial government and the people widened, partition had to be annulled in 1911, and that bitter episode led to many lasting consequences. 



In the light of these historical and constitutional developments and the evolution of federalism in the Indian context, the determined efforts of the Union Government and its oft-repeated declarations that Andhra Pradesh will be divided irrespective of the State Legislature’s views pose a grave danger to federalism and unity of India.  Andhra Pradesh was formed with the prior consent of the then Andhra State Legislature, and the then Hyderabad State Legislature.  When two popular movements for division of the State were launched in the three regions – in Telangana in 1969-70, and in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema in 1972-73,  – it was the Union Government which encouraged all regions to arrive at a negotiated settlement.  Corresponding Constitutional provisions were put in place to safeguard the interests of all regions.  An explicit and implicit compact was made by the Union with the people of Andhra Pradesh to the effect that the State would remain united.  It is on this basis that people migrated on a large scale to the other regions and to the capital city of Hyderabad, and built their lives, livelihoods and the State’s economy.  In this backdrop, any redrawing of the boundaries would need another agreement arrived at by the affected parties through patient negotiation, and the Union has a seminal role in helping reconcile conflicting interests harmoniously.  Parliament can act only on the basis of such an agreement, consensus and consent of the State.  Any other approach would be ham-handed, arbitrary, uneven and runs counter to the principles and practice of federalism as they have evolved under Indian conditions.



The circumstances of October 3, 2013 resolution of the Cabinet and subsequent developments make it abundantly clear that the Union is acting arbitrarily, contrary to past precedent and practice, in haste, and with short-term electoral considerations in mind.  There is not even the minimum effort to genuinely ascertain the State Legislature’s views and to accommodate them, let alone obtain its prior consent. There has been no honest effort to encourage detailed discussion and negotiation among all stake-holders, and no effort to arrive at a negotiated settlement satisfactory to all regions.



It is such arbitrary actions with short-term electoral calculations in mind that created grave crises for the unity and integrity of the nation in the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir in the 80’s.  Fundamentalist religious groups prone to violence and bloodshed were encouraged in the Punjab for partisan political gains, and Punjab and India paid a heavy price for  such a folly. Similarly, the elected Government was dismissed by engineering defections and on spurious grounds in Jammu and Kashmir in 1984, and subsequently an electoral alliance was forced on the unwilling regional party, National Conference, in 1987. As a result, terrorism reared its ugly head, and the nation continues to pay a heavy price.



If now, a new precedent is established by dividing Andhra Pradesh without the consent of the State Legislature, and without a negotiated settlement reached by all regions, it could lead to serious disaffection and maladjustment at the inter-state and national level. Such a precedent may eventually lead to division of any major State without the willing consent of the State and negotiated settlement of the stake-holders. The resulting linguistic disaffection, regional stresses, and maladjustment will eventually threaten national unity and integrity, and there is every danger that the Union will fall apart within a generation.



The way the President and Parliament handle the Andhra Pradesh issue will, in a fundamental sense, shape the future of the Union itself. This is a defining moment not for Andhra Pradesh alone, but for our federal Constitution and India itself.



Undoubtedly there is large support for the formation of Telangana state in the Telangana region outside the Greater Hyderabad city. Equally certainly, there is overwhelming opposition to division of the State in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, and in Hyderabad city. It cannot be anybody’s case that status quo ante should, or can, be restored. But what is needed is not precipitate and arbitrary action by the Union, but pains-taking efforts to assist negotiated settlement reconciling all conflicting interests.  In a highly polarized situation like this, when about 30# people fervently want division, and about 70% of the people are vehemently opposed to division of the State, there  has to be a negotiated settlement satisfying all, or at any rate minimizing dissatisfaction to all. The Union cannot create a group of winners, and a much larger group of losers. That will be a recipe for disaffection, disharmony and threat to national unity.



If such a arbitrary decision by the Union becomes a precedent, any and every State could be divided or boundaries altered without the State’s consent, and without a negotiated settlement.  That will effectively convert States into municipalities, and India into a unitary State. Neither the Constitution makers, nor nation builders intended such an outcome. And India’s future will be in peril if such an effort is made to make the nation effectively unitary at this stage.



It is in critical moments like this that the President and Parliament have to act with great restraint, foresight and wisdom. The President is not only the head of the Republic, but he is also a part of the Parliament. The President is elected by members of both Houses of Parliament as well as members of State Legislative Assemblies. In a fundamental sense the President represents the nation – both Union and States – and is the final defender of the Constitution and federalism along with the Supreme Court. This is therefore a fit case where the President should exercise his constitutional duty independently before recommending introduction of any Bill to divide the State of Andhra Pradesh.



The leaders of Parliamentary parties too should act with clarity and wisdom, and with the knowledge that division of a State without the State’s consent and a negotiated settlement among all stake-holders converts the nation effectively into a unitary one, and every State of the Union will, in future, be vulnerable to unilateral action for short-term electoral expediency.



The Constitution, the President, the Parliament and the political parties will be put to a severe test in this case, and the way they respond to this challenge will shape the future of our Republic, and the future of federalism in India.


* * *

123 Responses to “State Division – Federalism by Dr. JP Narayan”

  1. Chakravarthy says:

    An excellent write up by Dr. J.P. Narayan on States divison.

    • ram says:

      JP is just a toungue twister and Anti-Telangana…. He did not gave any post to T people in his party and he could not influence anyone with his so called truths( which are lies)…. AAP arvind Keijriwal has proved 1000 times better and he is new direction for future. BTW, APP supports Telangana and he does not make hurting comments like JP. 

  2. i think these detail report should be distribute to our print and Tele-media people. our great media people they are malpractising as per their dimensional way for business promotion. and more over most of our representatives are well qualified in Drop-out of school list.., so.., chakravarthy garu.., translate those article in regional language as well as in our telugu script., it will open up our nasty leaders eyes.more over  person like you should comeforward to take initiate action for undestanding public mind set and explain fedalarism. 

  3. uday says:

    Even the people in political circles do not the basics of the subject. This valuable information be published so all that people will get to know the actual facts

    • ram says:

      Yeah… Central Law ministry also dont know this …Crap man… Shut this ignorant statements … Law Ministry knows better than anyone

  4. Kiran says:

    All this is known to lot of people. My chief gripe is JP is not a columnist or "thinker". He is a politcian holding an office in telangana region. He holds an office of power as MLA. I am interested in his actions not just words. I see nothing but cowardice till now from him.

  5. Kiran says:

    What i meant above is JP is not just a columnist or thinker. He has real power and responsibility.

    • ram says:

      JP has proved many times for his twisting words and what ever he wrote might not be all true..he might have mis-understood… Union Govt will not a Constitutional Mistake because Law will not accept anything beyond constitution…. I have seen his program in ABN and he is aganist Telangana …. He NEVER Wrote ANYTHING IN FAVOUR OF TELANGANA… Also this blog owner Chakravarthy has showed high handed body language in TV shows and he is aganist Telanagna….. Now, these guys cannot stop telangana with their Lies…..

      • Chandra says:

        Opposing bifurcation of AP itself means IN FAVOUR OF TELANGANA. What else you want?. Any sane mind who loves telangana opposes bifurcation of AP.

        • ram says:

          This kind of comments did not attracted Delhi Bosses … Dont show Andhra Cunning Attitutude in this Andriod Generation… Be precise and clear to the point. Atleast change this cunning and cheating attitude so that you can acheive some thing in near future….Btw, your kind of thought process willl not be acknowleged by ANY PERSON in Galaxy except SA people. 

          • satya says:

            Ram, wary of ur words. This is not ur favorite T site where ppl are allowed with their verbal diarrhea against a particular region. Any sweeping generalizations against common people of any region is unwarranted.

            • ram says:

              [Comment deleted]

              Ram, hope now you will take the advice seriously and not to post comments abusing people of any region.

              • Solofsat says:

                "Oh GOD !!! When will these SA guys behave like normal people ?"

                Mr Ram, this is exactly what Mr Satya was cautioning you about. Terms like "Andhra Cunning attitute", "SA guys are not normal" etc are parochial generalizations of the nature of any group of people  stereo-typed by the politicians who want to spread hatred (this time it is region, some other times it is caste or religion) . It is a shame that even educated Indians (from Telangana) are falling prey for such trash-talk. For some unknown reason, just because a person is born in a partical part of the state makes him cunning and another one innocent. How mature!! 

  6. subhash says:

    Yes JP is against telangana with out consensus. You can say consensus is not possible. When it was possible in UP, MP and Bihar, there is not point in believing its not possible. Assemby resolution is true representation of consensus not an all party meeting in closed doors

    • ram says:

      Whether you express in closed door meeting on Union Govt official meeting or Assembly both are same.  JP did not gave any TOP positions for Telangana People and some time back there was Telangana LSP formed. However, it is depicting that you guys only confine to yourself and you dont open doors for bigger spectrum.. the clear proof is how AAP achevied its GOAL how LSP failed to gain Deposits…… You all should understand that UNION Govt is not a Boot Camp Team and they have better legal experts than anyone else in this country. UNION Govt. does not deviate from the Consitution Framework. If some one did not followed consitution that is not current Govt. issue.

      • kkm says:

        @Ram, "Union Govrenment has better legal experts".

        Hope you will maintain same argument, if the bill would have procalimed Hyderabad as UT and SA to get badrachalam or T to have 12 disticts etc.,

        "LSP did not give any top position to T person" .. on the same stand even congress NEVER NEVER gave top position at the center to T person or even for that matter SA person also" then how come congress has not lost deposits

        I have read your comments on previous topics also and debated…you have only escaped commenting when were cought with no fitting answer. CLEARLY YOU ARE BEYOND REPAIR.. AND ABSOLUTE BANKRUPT OF ANY REASONABLE RATIONALE AND THOUGHT PROCESS

        The venom you are spitting against  your own race, linking every thing to T, will act to your detriement very soon.

        • ram says:

          @KKM. We are OK with Congress for not giving us top posts till now, but now congress announced Telangana. MY STAND TOWARDS UNION GOVT OF INDIA WILL REMAIN SAME. As an INDIAN, I OBEY CONSTITUION AND RESPECT THE SENIOR GOI MINISTERS JOB IN TELANGANA PROCESS. I have never escaped answering you…I might have not responded when they dont deserve a response…..You guys are very low standards to current generation and its so funny that your SA leaders are still did not got enough SA people to debate in Assembly…You guys were with zero knowledge and with free money because of adequate water… 

    • ram says:

      I still agree for Assembly consensus and that vote should go with Party Decision. If they want to to vote for individual choice they should have contested independently. 2004 and 2009 elections proved SA people DID not considered Telangana as election Agenda. That shows consensus. 



      • subhash says:

        Performance in elections is a different issue. LSP is failed to get their message across to common people in the way AAP could do it. JP is the leader who is always saying division can happen only when the other party agrees for it. There is never a change in his stand unlike other parties. When it comes to voting by SA people, before 2009 dec 9 nobody has seen it as some thing that would materialize including telangana congress leaders. and no party was explicit abt supporting  telananga including hyderabad. And another thing is apart from telangana how many other issues in election promises are viewed seriously by people

        • ram says:

          This clearly shows either you are NOT serious OR you might be intentional that after elections we can skip on our election stand…. negligence or arrogance is not acceptable…. If the bifuration is tabled just now then it is a different case…. this heat is ON since years and Turned election results from 2004….JP whom you feel good should have tried to pass his arguments …. there was barely minimum communication….Neither.he never came to TV debates or his party people expressed ths same…. He should atleast now follow the steps of AAP… APP is going to ROCK and change the Dynamics….BTW, AAP supports Telangana

          • Ramesh says:

            If AAP wins in Delhi, good luck to them and people of delhi with the new government. If they support Telangana formation, again good luck to them. It does not matter to parliament of India or legislature of AP. It only matters if they can form the government in AP and/OR part of Government of India and then they create new states (including or exluding Telangana) as per the constitution by letter and spirit.

            Whether I personally like it or not, if congress party or any other party can convince the AP legislature and pass a resolution requesting the bifurcation of the state, I would accept. But this current procedure being followed by the GOI is absolute insult to Consitution of Indian in letter and spirit.

          • subhash says:

            When JP never expressed his opinion, why TRS people attacked him in the assembly premises. How much of freedom of speech valued by T separatists. How many times VMS tried to arrange meetings in hyderabad and they are attacked? You can check youtube before claiming JP never came to TV debates. Whether to follow footsteps of AAP for getting power or not immaterial to JP's stand on telangana

            • subhash says:

              And regarding AAP, BJP or any other national party supporting telangana. When you have a limited information on any issue, you tend to draw conclusions. For example may be little out of context, I support SC sub categorization because, reservations are meant to bring equal justice to all the sections of people. When one sub section is not getting benefit because of competing with another sub section, it makes sense to sub divide the group with the same sprit of reservations. But that was rejecting by court. May be i am missing some information here.   similarily, prior to sri krishna committe report everybody are under the assumption that telangana is under developed. I am not sure how many parties would do a detailed analysis on the issue before commenting on it when they dont have direct stakes in it

            • ram says:

              JP did not expressed Opinion he insulted People with twisting the sayings of winston churchill… Please watch and know properly before imagination.

              • subhash says:

                if speech of JP is insulting people that qualify for a physical abuse, what would all KCR and co speeches qualify for?

                • ram says:

                  Thats is what you need to accept.. JP is not a better person… Comparing JP to KCR itself is not correct… JP cannot mingle with common man and KCR can motivate common man….

        • ram says:

          Election Issue > Telangana Issue Dominated on top of all issues — Your Priority Should be this.

  7. Kiran says:


    Consent means consent of legislature. That is the only constitutional body to represent people of AP. Your intrepretation of election results  and manifestos dont matter. Nobody cares.

    Further the article is not just about the law – it is about procedure, federalism, the power of precedence and the spirit of law – all of which have been violated by center. Stop being a brain dead T sepratist an grow the heck up.

    • ram says:

      Procedure are drived from laws…both are not isolated….You need to understand that Kapil Sibal, Jai Ram Ramesh and GOI is highly educated and experienced than you….They will NOT voilate from constitution….Dont expect that seniors to act as per your half knowledge….As per consitution of India…consent of legislature is NOT needed only view is Needed… Please understand yourself properly before mis-guiding other people….Atleast change now, because till now you were failed with this mis-understanding in your mission against Telangana…Just wait for one more month — All CHannel acrosss the world will air the Acheivements of us…

      • Ramesh says:

        We all know how many U turns the same cabinet took over the last 5 years. And how many cabinet decisions had to be stuck down by courts.

        So let us not kid here. I am not saying that I know better than Kapil Sibal. It is only that all these people are doing something going against their own wisdom just to please  'Amma / Madam'. Because 'Amma' has come to a decision that dividing AP will give few more MP seats in 2014 elections. 

        • ram says:

          It is the game of 25 vs 17…. Still if you cannot understand that Division is happening at the cost of loosing seats in SA Region…. Y'day also KCR questioned in Group I Officers meeting … Is there any Intelligent person from SA ?

          • Ramesh says:

            Do you even read yourself, before posting ?

            It is not 17 vs 25. But 17 vs 3. The 'madam' clearly  knows that YSRCP andTDP are going to win more than 22 seats in 2014. And by getting a merger with TRS and by dividing AP, Congress can gain 15 or 16 of the T MP seats. And she is least bothered about 2019 or beyond.

      • Kiran says:

        So the latest trick is to drop names of "high and mighty" and hope I get intimated. You never grow up dont you ?

      • satya says:

        >> Procedure are drived from laws…both are not isolated….You need to understand that Kapil Sibal, Jai Ram Ramesh and GOI is highly educated and experienced than you….They will NOT voilate from constitution

        The basis of ur arugment that 'they know it all and no one should question'  itself is crap. Going by such meaningless argument Supreme court shouldnt have issued any notice to govt on 2G scam or CWG scam because GOI knows all and they dont violate constitution. Madhu koda shouldnt be kept in jail because a CM is supreme to know abt constitution. 

  8. Chandra says:

    @ram,  I am not sure whether you are ignorant or unable to understand the world like how G.K said once here about inherernt  intellectual inability of Telangana separatists. People during elections vote to individuals in a democracy. Not parties. Party gives a symbol and a broad idea about right, left or center. There is no method in democracy where people vote to parties first and then party selects individuals based upon how many places they have won. Thats not called democratic election process.  Constitution of India provides every right to members of legislatures to exercise their right to express their opinion on the floor and their people's opinion. The decisions of the parties to which they are associated with is not legally binding. Please go and ask this to any of those Telangaa lawyers.


    • ram says:

      Dont you atleast introspect now that your thinking is not correct and your so called thoughts are thrashed by outside world – What did you acheived with your thinking and what will you acheive in future ? You can never bring Telanaga People of United AP with your thinking ? What is the benefit of your understanding if we have inability to understand. You guys live in your world and dont step in other shoes while thinking … this is permanent disability of anti- telangana people specially SA people. 

      • Kiran says:

        Stop using "outside world" as an excuse for your display of inability to think. Never think you "acheived" anything based on injustice. it is your inability to distinguish between good and bad, justice and injustice which is giving you the illusion you achieved something when you are taking a huge step backwards.

        • ram says:

          We acheived HUGE buddy… NEVER NEVER Underestimate the Other ? Time has proven your lies could not change the decisions … Telangana is GIVEN because of INJUSTICE and ORGANIZED INJUSTICE…. We are PRECISE in our abilities and we DID it.

          • Ved says:

            Whether T is formed or not, dont kid yourself that it is achievement of T vadis. Congress divides or unites AP based on its electoral needs, evrything else is accidental. If integrationists think that they have stopped congress from announcing state division for 9 years or separatists think that  they have succeeded in forcing congress to divide the state, they are living in fools paradise. If Congress thinks that TRS and YSRCP are not dependable, the division will be stopped any minute.

            When division happens 2-3 years from now after 2014 elections, the parameters will be completely opposite - most favorable to SA. Just like the current ruling party is desperate to get 17 seats from T, the new ruling party will be desperate to get 25 seats from SA region. I hope t vadis take credit for the division then as well. This is like the story of monkey trying to resolve dispute between two cats, and during the process each cat thinks that she is winning.

  9. Selective amnesia of Pseudo Federalism 
    Anti Telangana Bluff Master
    Intellectually Dishonest and an Intellectual Extremist who goes to any length to Distort and Defame Even Constitution 
    Terribly disappointed of JP..
    He is Nailed on the Very Basics by New Information Commissioner of India 
    Madabhushi Sridhar Garu–80251

    • Chandra says:

      Madabushi a professor of law and now some govt officer has diplayed his hollowess in understanding about democracy and federalism in that crap. He says how 13 districts decide the life of 10 districts. pathetic law professor. So in that case why is he giving the fate of 10 districts to some MP of nagaland or Haryana. Is that OK with him?

      He talks about all party meeting. This great professor has to enlighten us which state in India was formed by all party meeting? DId he read dec 9th statement properly? Chid asked AP assembly to pass a resolution.

      His views are tribal wisdom. Majority opinion of a third party which is not affected by the decision is not what democracy is all about. Its lobbying. This is the fundamental misunderstanding among T intellectuals(so called). They should have lobbyied with integrationists. Not some third party. Please be advised thats not gonna happen.

      Majority opinion and minority rights. Thats what is all about. His argument is not gonna pass the test. Its a worth try though!.

      • ram says:

        If there is NO power to union govt. you SA guys have killed all telangana people by now. What is the change after chidambaram statement… your leaders resinged and did not allowed & cooperated…. instead you delayed it… It could have been better if you guys supported the decision since dec9… There is NO better way to bifuricate AP other the one followed now.

  10. Chakravarthy says:

    For the record, during my personal interaction with JP, he on multiple occassions said that he is in favor of division. For that matter he favors division of AP into three states. Of course, I profoundly disagree with him.

    • Chandra says:

      Thank you Chakravarthy garu for clarifying this. No doubt the above write up is after a  very god research by JP. But I dont understand his basis or rationale to bifurcate AP into 2 or 3 parts. When there are divergent views in a democracy, majority opinion prevails protecting  minority rights. Even if majority in AP supports bifurcation the opinion of minority people who talk about the rights of all people on shared assets, capital city will be protected. Is this what he wants to say or I dont know.

      • Chakravarthy says:

        JP's rationale for division is not very different from separatists. We are still Telugu people even if the state is divided. Division is inevitable, so it is better we get it done sooner than later. Rayalaseema should become a separate state as it will develop faster with central govt grants.

        His only pre-condition, sustained effort must be made to develop consensus among three regions before division.

        • Kiran says:

          He has no "rationale". Just excuses to avoid taking head on T sepratists. Confusing round about logic like people can demand a seprate state but separate state wont solve any problems . Or ignoring the basic premise of t sepratism that telugu people cannot sit across and resolve disputes but need borders sanctioned by Delhi and muttering platitudes about telugu unity. All this has rendered him irrelvant and reduced him to a pathetic excuse of a man he promised to be.

          He cannot stomach fighting justice for himself when he was assualted preferring to hide under "pedda manusu" when attackers were still taunting him. What fight will he put up for others ? His verbal sophistry only makes him annoying.  Atleast chiranjeevi talks dumb and does dumb. He talks big and does dumb.

          • Chandra says:

            OK. If JP thinks division is inevitable but he wants to bring consnsus, then sure he can start bringing up a consensus:

            He should state what is fair and then simulataneously start efforts to make T separatists agree for Hyd as UT or common capital, revenue sharing  by an amendment in parliament, river water, srisailam distributions adjustment by some constitutional guarantee and a formal apology on the floor by Telangana groups who misguided telangana people with falsified information . Once both parties agree for this he can push AP state legislature to send a resolution in a brotherhood atmosphere to parliament.

            If he is is really serious about bringing up a consensus he should start talking with moderates in T so that intergationists are also slowly convinced with his argument.

             [ Personally I do not agree for bifurcation of AP as it symbolizes "unity"  and a great history of Andhra's and any disturabance to this is incompetence of India as a nation]

    • ram says:

      Personal Conversations are Just personal … .He need to come on to MEDIA and ADDRESS MASSES….Becaz he is into Politics….

  11. Ravi says:

    What is VMS connexion with TePraVe started by retd. DGP Anjaneya Reddy?

    • Chakravarthy says:

      A group of people including AR garu are trying to get all different employee, political, and voluntary organizations to co-operate with each other.

      • Ravi says:

        What is ur role in TePraVe? Also is it true you broke up with Prabhaker?

        • Chakravarthy says:

          A representative from our organization participates in all meetings held by integrationist organizations including TPV, APNGO and others.

          Prabhakar garu is the General Secretary of Visalandhra Mahasabha.

          • GK says:

            I am not sure if ex DGP Anjaneya Reddy can add value directly or even indirectly thru TPV. I know you have a common goal but I feel you will loose your credibility by closely associating with him. My personal opinion is that he has an arrogant personality left right and center…

  12. Kiran says:


    JP just wants to run away from this historic debate. He thinks he can camoufalge his irresponsibility by  mouthing some confusing  platitudes. he says states and boundaries and political identities dont matter only the welfare of people. Then why the heck is he in politics? he should go work for NGO or UNO.

    He has been made an MLA of AP state by the people of this state but he has no opinion whether continuation of AP state is in the interest of people or should it be broken up. How do you describe that ? He talks rubbish such as "if they think telangana is good then ok"..who is "they"..or they not your people ? did they not elect you ? he had no opinion on smallminded vision of telangana articulated by t sepratists.

    Basicallt useless as a politician.

  13. Kiran says:

    I do have some sympathy for likes of JP. These people take some things for granted such as basic stability of political system and try to improve things and deliver better performance. JP wants it through some hard to understand mumbo jumbo called "decentralization" ..while chirnajeevi wanted to do it by changing the caste nature of political elite in state. But when the basic premise of political structure is questioned through sectarian identities it puts them off balance and they really grope how to respond to raw tribal identities. Infact even TDP is basically in the same boat. it took an existing structure of AP and tried to make it better.

    This does not apply to Congress, which learned all its tricks of administration from British. When  faced with prospect of being  in second or third place for long time in AP it hatched a plan to destabilize the whole polity by raking up Telangana via KCR. These dirty tricks are also displayed when Congress under YSR tried to kill PRP and TRS via coverts and break ups instead of defeating them in elections alone.

    However there is still no excuse for TDP to act this scared and clueless and off balance. The best way to deal with Congress and Delhi is NO COMPROMISE on core truths and principles. Dont bend over to accomodate liars and bad guys in the hope of compromise and going forward. It can bit us back.



  14. The proper and correct reply to this lies in the Article by Madabhushi Sridhar says:

    Pseudo Federalism and Tyranny of Majority

    Madabhushi Sridhar

    Seemandhraleaders from different parties are repeatedly raising a contention that Indian Federation is under challenge because the Union is dividing a state arbitrarily without obtaining consent of its assembly.  This contention is not fair and bona fide from the political point of view and completely incorrect on the Constitutional front. Almost all those who raised these contentions are politically biased and pathetically opportunistic.  Entire crux of their misinterpretations of Constitutional provisions and anti-Telangana contentions using borrowed vocabulary is about so called ‘capital’ in capital city of Andhra industrial-cum-political-contractors.

    India has mostly borrowed the features of Parliamentary democracy from British Constitution, which cannot be categorised as Federal Constitution. The framers of Indian Constitution carefully avoided the federal features as manifest in United States of America with Presidential democracy. After great discussions the political scientists concluded that Indian Constitution created a Union of States, with quasi federal features, which can also be called as cooperative federation. 

    Then the question is whether Article 3 violates the federal character of the Indian Constitution? The AP High Court Chief Justice with another Justice has held on October 8, 2013 in a politically interested litigation (new form of PIL) analytically explained that by giving plenary powers to Centre, the Article 3 paved way for securing the federalism of the nation. Chief Justice KalyanJyothiSengupta of and Justice K C Bhanu of AP High Court said that Article 3 would not violate any basic structure. The Bench said: Article 3 in our view has empowered Parliament to regulate and preserve Federalism as enshrined in the Constitution.  In that sense, it is one part of basic structure of the Constitution”. These so called protagonists of Indian federalism opposing Telangana formation have conveniently ignored this judgment which categorically answered the absurd misinterpretation of Articles 3 and 371D. 

    In a federation, the Centre and States or provinces will enjoy equal status and sovereignty and residual powers are left to the States, but in India – Union is more powerful and residuary powers are given back to Union and not the states. The Second Report of the Union Powers Committee explained the reason for making Centre more powerful:  “Now that partition is a settled fact, we are unanimously of the view that it would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak central authority which would be incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vital matters of common concern and of speaking effectively for the whole country in the international space.”  Dr.Ambedkar listed several features of the Constitution which mitigated the rigidity and legalism of federalism. Indian states cannot draw their own constitution unlike those of United States.  Only in India the Union Government needed the power to alter boundaries of states because of historic reasons, which ‘leaders’ cannot be blind to.

    Dr Ambedkar explained: ‘Indian Federation was not the result of an agreement (or a contract) by the States to join a Federation, and that the Federation, not being the result of an agreement, no State had the right to secede from it. The Federation was a Union because it was indissoluble’. But the states are not indestructible. They can be altered. This is how the rigidity of federalism was prevented from becoming tyranny of majority.

    The essential feature of federalism is unimpeachable autonomy for the provinces. But does that mean that the provincial government can subjugate the sub-region within?  If around 3.5 crore people, forming ten districts were allowed to govern themselveswithin Union of India, after getting relieved of unethical and discriminative rule by other individuals, is it not advancement of federalism? In a democracy, why should Telangana people be denied of their sovereignty and how long they should not share sovereignty? Are they not people, citizen, voters and taxpaying decision makers of this democracy? Which federalist or political philosopher told these intellectual political manipulators that 13 districts should consent for formation of a ten district state? If 23 districts can enjoy provincial autonomy under principle of federalism, why not 10 districts see such federal autonomy for their region?

    What is the capacity of people of 13 districts to decide the life and future of Telangana? They are not asking anyone to go out of country neither they are going, but separating them from a set of geographical borders which denied them their identity, culture, language and deprived them of their resources. Those who killed spirit of integrity have no moral right to talk about federalism.

    Consent or consensus

    The preachers of ‘federalism’ talk about absence of consent or broad consensus. Before December 9, 2009 and during 2013 several times all political parties expressed their consent, agreement, absence of objection, or claimed they had no authority to divide state, or supported the cause of Telangana state, questioned the delay in decision making by the Union etc.A jailed and bailed leader go around the country to gain sympathy for their unconstitutional stand and returned with failure.  Today they want a formal consent of Legislative Assembly, where anti-Telangana legislators continue to be in majority who are united to say no.  The leaders took U turns, parties either defected from their commitments or ignored their resolutions and manifestos. With their money, caste and other undue influences Seemandhra could enlist support of some legislators in Telangana also. Some of those elected from constituencies in Telangana, educated or uneducated, behaving same.  Highly educated and highly rich are highly unreasonable.

    Is it not unethical and unscrupulous to say that there is no consensus for Telangana formation? The opportunism and defecting from their earlier commitment is glaringly visible as common trait of Seemandhra leaders or legislators of Congress, TDP and YSRCP etc.  Ek-MLALoksatta is no exception.  In spite of political problems and inconveniences, the BJP and CPI have shown remarkably exceptional ‘no-U turn-positive commitment and consistency’ for division of state. Hence, shouting from top of roof that there is no consent or broad consensus, no negotiated agreement etc is politically immoral contention. After breaching all agreements, GOs, Presidential Orders with Constitutional foundations are violated left, right and center, these leaders are talking about ‘negotiations’ and ‘agreements’.

    While talking about consent as precondition for bifurcation of state, these preachers brushed aside states reorganization in 1956, where no formal consent was absent. They interpreted it as ‘broader consensus”. But what the Chairman of the State Reorganization Commission Justice Fazl Ali said at page 101, Para 378, recommending retention of Telangana as separate state clearly stated: "The real fears of the people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately, while Telangana, itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising coastal Andhra." Where is the consensus? The fact that they have converted Telangana into a colony was reason for the prolonged agitation.

    Recent events in AP presented unprecedented, peculiar resistance to formation of Telangana which is without parallel in any democracy.None can site any authority from any corner of constitutional democracy to preach or sermonize about federalism against Telangana.

    The stiff opposition has reached the worst level of hate, vengeance and insanity which has terrible potency of kicking up a civil war.  This should be avoided cautiously and consciously for integrity and federal features of Unitary Constitution of India. As the Andhras gained a status of permanent majority, Telangana being minority for ever has to suffer the tyranny of majority. Democracy and federalism does not mean this tyranny, which cannot be sugar coated with nice vocabulary of federalism. This was exactly the purpose and objective of Article 3 as propounded by Dr B R Ambedkar. This Article went through several changes to recognize sovereignty and self-rule desire of people like Telanganites and took the existing shape finally.

    Some thinkers in the past initially proposed that the bill for formation of new state should originate from affected state’s legislative assembly. In situation like Telangana this is impossible. Then at second stage, it was proposed to ascertain views of Assembly before Bill is introduced. Now the people are witnessing the way the political managers and manipulation experts are trying to delay the ‘expression of views’ so that Telangana formation is pushed beyond Assembly and Loksabha elections in 2014. Thus, if ascertaining the views is made compulsory, again the welfare of minority will totally be denied. That is why the Constitution is rightly amended to make ‘reference’ to State Assembly sufficient. Article 3 will help two states out of a big state to be federal, sovereign and autonomous. Article 3 is the only way to rescue exploited people like Telangana from opportunists, educated dalals, and stinking rich unethical politicians. Article 3 reflect wisdom of visionaries like Ambedkar who could foresee how a small group of vested interests who invested multicrore rupees in lands converting capital city into real estate hub, can drive the politics of a state into anarchy.

    Those who love to hate Telangana raised another point that ‘territorial integrity’ is inviolable. Agreed. But that refers to territory of nation and not the state or district or a block. Very fact that Constitution supports changing territory of state negates this misinterpretation.  For inviolable territorial integrity, which is undoubtedly paramount, creating a separate state for people like Telangana is essential. With Telangana and Telanganas of future, the true spirit of Federalism comes to life, the power gets effectively decentralized. States will not be reduced to municipalities as unreasonably apprehended, but even municipalities and gram panchayats grow strong upholding the real character of federalism.  For these pseudo federalists, federalism ends with two levels- center and state. In fact the real federalism lies in states giving powers and funds to district bodies, municipalities and panchayats. Instead, they pilfered rivers, hijacked electricity wires, diverted resources including the income from one region to another. While clamouring for federalism at national level, leaders should not forget significance of federalism within the states.

    President and Parliament are constitutionally presumed to be wise and reasonable. Though 33 per cent of legislators are criminally charged, Parliament is still hoped that it would act reasonably better than a few political criminals whose twisting tongues make them worse than killers and dacoits. 

  15. GK says:

    Now…Jagan is the only one who is going to cash-in every voice for SA…as much as I want T I do not want Jagan to become the CM of SA…

  16. Kiran says:

    Madabushi  article illustrates how an essentially narrow minded  bigot who has no case other than village household level prejudices tries to rant in name of democracy, tyranny of majority etc. Article 3 gives a right to Delhi – we all know that – but to say a sixty year old state which represents 90 million should have no say in its very future of existence shows what a petty minded moron he is. So in hypothetical telangana state at any point any time a minority can demand and break it up. I dont think his brain will go that far consumed as it is with hate and bigotry and only whats looks good in very short term.

    The rest of his article about breaking agreements, anti telangana exploited people are all convenient manufactured lies to suit separatist politics. The only thing driving this is "ee andhollu" is this educated c*nt who never grew up.

    Democracy means trust in fellow citizen. Thats why democracy gives every individual a vote and does not bother what region caste he comes from. when he does not have any trust in entire region of 50 million how is he in anyway shape or form understand democracy ? such people will be pushed to margins of any  mature society. but thanks to delhi they are now mainstream and $hitting on our heads.


    • P. Rao says:

      @Kiran.  I side with what you said before about JP's post. JP's post reads more like an answer to a question set for IAS exam.  Of course he argues his points well. But to what consequence?

      On the Madabhushi article, as you have indicated we have to trust our fellow citizens.  The democracies today are representative democracies. Not mobocracies. We select someone as our representative (MLA/MP) and trust his judgment in casting his vote in the making of laws. If we do not like him/her we do not have to reelect that person. Common citizens are not expected to participate directly in decision making. Kejriwal after becoming the CM said that 1.5 crore Delhi voters are going to run the government which is a misleading statement to make.

      Many t-vaadis including  Madabhushi above talk like Telangana people never had a voting right in the last 60 years and thus excluded from decision making process.  Where were the 119 MLAs in the AP assembly coming from all these years?  M. Chenna Reddy, P.V.Narasimha Rao, J. Vengal Rao, and T. Anjaiah were real Chief Ministers or figments of our imagination?

      You are right on the mark in characterizing the Madabhushi article for what it is.

      • Kiran says:

        They vote ,,,they enjoy power ..but they will not take any responsibility for "breaking agreements" or "exploitation". that goes to "andhrollu". There is no real case here its soo pathetic we are occupied to deal with these worms out of woodwork unleashed by Delhi but mentored locally.

        • ram says:

          Removing Sridhar Babu from Legislative Affairs has proved what TRS was saying since long that, ANDHRA CM will not allow Telangana Leaders to work and they will do anything for their supremacy…. ANDHRA Kutralu, Andhra Vidroham is PROVED just yday….its proved that this blog owner book is full of lies and now he has to append this story in his book if he is genuine…

          • Ramesh says:

            In your rage, you are forgetting the basic truth.

            The current CM Kiran Kumar Reddy is CM for Andhra Pradesh. He has the support of the majority of the assembly (from all 294 assembly segments - T, A, R and H ). If any MLA(s) do not have trust in him, they should bring a no-trust motion. If you care to remember, even the MLAs from Karimnagar, Warangal supported Kiran Kumar reddy's government when YSRCP brought no-confidence motion.

            My suggestion to you is that you should first practise telling truths. Once you acheive some practise in telling truths and can consistently tell truths, you can start teaching/preaching other people.

            • ram says:


              • subhash says:

                Centre by passing the convention of assembly resolution by the name of article 3 is democracy in your view and CM making use of his power to change minister's portifolio is insult. You need to first agree that centre has cheap whole state of AP, then you can talk about CM cheating or insulting

                • ram says:

                  @Subash > Just read the question and reply…. Ramesh asked for a truth and I supplied it…. what ever you are saysing is might be truth or not and I ma not bothered of center behavior… the issue is SA behavior to T people…

  17. P. Rao says:

    "ANDHRA Kutralu, Andhra Vidroham is PROVED just yday….its proved that this blog owner book is full of lies and now he has to append this story in his book if he is genuine…"

    Didn't the Centre gave 2-lakh-crore ruupees recently to develop existing IT hub in Hyderabad? They still claim discrimination and non-development. I wish someone  discriminates all other regions like that. :)

    • ram says:


    • ram says:

      comment deleted

      • subhash says:

        A correction money is allocated for infrastructure development. And another things many so called andhra investors have established engineering colleges around hyderabad and giving 85% of the seats only to students of OU region in the name of zonal system. Unfortunately all t vadis like you conviniently ignore these kinds of favours others did for telangana and brand them as looters

        • ram says:

          @ Subash — Hooks to statements … this is about ITIR project ….Union Govt. approved Landscapes in HYD, BLR and some other cities…thats it….No funding… better get your basics corrected

  18. Kiran says:


    You have been warned before not to indulge in wholesale stereoptying of millions of people. Leave that dirty mind to your t separatist forums. The decision is of an individual excercising his perogative not a policy decision. Sridhar babu is not a voiceless puppy that he needs your support for his positions – are you going to wish for student suicides so the minister gets a potfolio of his choice ?. Dont drag millions of people and their fate in to politics between two very rich and powerful people.

    • ram says:

      @I am repeating again and will repeat – this is an atrocity aganist Telangana People by SeemaAndhra CM. This shows clearly the attitude of Seemandhra Palakulu aganist Telangana People. To the other question, none in telangana will care your warnings …better put it back in your mouth.  You dont have the maturity to understand the difference between Individual and CM and Minister and Individual…. YES we all Telangana People will Support Sridhar Babu and protest aganist the atrocity.  Politics is FOR PEOPLE NOT for two Individuals …BETTER SCAN YOUR BRAIN

      • Ramesh says:

        At best, you personally could be supporting Sridhar babu. Who gave you the mandate to speak on behalf of all the people residing in Telengana region ????????

        • ram says:

          My Birth in telangana has given mandate to talk for my people … and My birth as human being have me mandate to talk for Humanity… Just dont be absurd…..

          • subhash says:

            Ha Ha Ha funny, with your logic, Being born in india, one person who is a gay by choice will go to US and declare all indians are gays. How would it be??

          • Ramesh says:

            By birth if you feel telanganaite, no one will stop you. But you definitely do not have any mandate to speak on behalf of all telanganaites. If it was so, the Sri Krishna committee could have just spoken to you. There was no need for them to tour so many villages in 10 districts of nizam telangana and read thousands of letters, affidavits they received from Citizens from these 10 districts.

            Keep replying, I would like to have something to laugh at. Thanks for the few laughs you provided today.

      • satya says:

        Sridhar Babu is a minister of AP not to telangana. As a citizen of AP I support his sacking. :D

  19. Chakravarthy, you were planning to move the courts against Telangana formation. Any update please?

    • ram says:

      I humbly request chakravarthy to respond on the timing of moving Sridhar Babu… Is this not a proof of insult to Telangana ?

      • Ramesh says:

        At worst, it could be an insult to Sridhar Babu. And even then it is not for you or me to decide whether it is an insult or not. It is for Sridhar Babu to feel insulted or not.

        • ram says:

          @Ramesh > This is not individual persons discussion, this blog is to discuss about T and SA. Your statments dont match to phase we are passing through…. YOU DONT UNDERSTANT THE HEAT… I DID NOT SLEPT LAST NIGHT.. .WAITING FOR THE BILL TO BE DISCUSSED… SHIT DAMM IT…. 

        • ram says:

          This is sample how Injustice meted aganist Telangana By SA CMs… the point is proved and what ever you says is not going to turn the fact and its god grace that your true colors are pulled out … KUTRADARULU…. NEETI NIYAMAM LEDU…. MATA TAPPUTARU ADHIKARAM KOSAM… NETTESTARU NYAYAM ADIGUTHEY… ANDUKEY.. WE WANT T CMS TO RULE T FOR EVER….THAT IS ONLY POSSBILE IN SEPERATE T. JAI TELANGANA.

          • Ramesh says:

            Agree that this blog is about a public interest topic. And you are welcome to talk your reasons, your views about public policies and events. But you do not have any mandate to speak on behalf of some one else unless you have sworn affidavit from them to represent them. So, stop representing Sridhar babu, stop representing all the citizens of nizam telangana region. You dont have any right to do so. Infact, your  child is more older than 18 years you cant represent for them. Just stop.

            And for your own sake, stop generalising about citizens of 13 districts of AP. 

  20. Chandra says:

    ram says:



     I dont know why you are so much worried about AP assemly proceedings. KCR said AP assembly is not an issue at all in this matter. If you want you can ask Sudershan Reddy also. Infact our own Jai G here should be able to bring in confidence in you. Formation of states is completely in the hands of NewDelhi.

    If I were u I wouldnt even give a damn to sreedhanr babu, chandra babu or any other babu. These babus are  are least significant in states formation. If center flip flop on this you should hold the collar of NewDelhi, KCR and Sudershan Reddy.   Your dealing should be with New Delhi. You should focus on Delhi folks not here. Have confidence on KCR, T intellectuals and the divine Article 3. So just sit back and enjoy the show. :)

      • Chandra says:

        Sure.But separatists still seems to be in disbelief!. It would be interesting if you can suggest separatists to  shut up in the assembly and just watch the proceedings about discussion of bill and/or resolution or no opinion at all (which is also "a view"), as these things are not binding. I dont see any point in Telangana separatists worrying about AP assembly proceedings. Just focus on Delhi.

        BTW let separatists know about the deal with 371D from the above link and its consequences.

        • Kiran says:


          What are the consequesnces in dealing with 371d ? can you please inform.

          • Chandra says:

            First of all let me say that I met only one lawyer in my entire life until now who is my distant relative in india. :)

            Now, from that link they clearly say that 371D has to be "omitted" once the state forms. This is pretty much similar opinion as said by AG of India,but AG said it still functions in the remaining state but not in new state T.

            So once T is formed no more 371D for T as they say it will be omitted (Otherwise it wont be "proper" to have a nonfunctional legal part as per my understanding). So if T wants 371D, it needs to be put again which is not impossible but not very easy as it needs 2/3rd majority in parliament and some more legal steps.

            Consequeces: I think u know pretty much everything what will happen. No more zone or distrcit wise quota's in T and the below average districts in T will be swamped by people from hyd RR and other developed districts in all the available or upcoming jobs.

            Thats what it seems to me. I expect Jai G to say on this  " particularly from the above link on 371D"



  21. raghu says:

    I have to agree with Ram,  the problem with AP has been that CM has too much power and 90% of the time the state had a CM from Non-Tg region.   The decision of KKR only shows that TG ministers have to just be rubber stamps of SA CM's.  If KKR can behave like this one can only imagine how much of power TG ministers had under YSR,CBN,NTR etc SA leaders

    • subhash says:

      But that power didn't really translate in to biased development in seemandhra region. More development happened in T region only. We have not heard of any T politian loosing his position for fighting for rights of T.  That only probably translated to SA politians on an average being more wealthy than T polititians (Dont have any data to support it). Does that mean is all the T agitation for T politians getting more wealth?

      • Kiran says:

        This treatment to sridhar babu "proves" that all t ministers are rubber stamps of CM? yeah right. I wish these guys take a peek in to how these pwoerful politicians operate – they have plenty of good relations, inter marriage, business deals etc – they absolutely don't need or don't care a region based support – though they manipulate those feelings for their benefit.

        The power that CM in AP has is the power that CM has in TN or MAH or anywhere in India. Its the same power that PM has over his cabinet. Does anybody ask which region the PM comes from and if his region is not aequately represented they need to secceede ?

        Then why these special standards are applied to AP to divide themsevles. A state should be judged by development outcomes and not how a manager treats his colleagues.

        • Ved says:

          Isn't he the same minister who was threatened by Kodandaram that he would meet the same fate as his father( who was killed by the nexalites)? I guess that was not an insult but more of goonda giri.

    • satya says:

      such a narrow minded observations.. politicians align by parties..not by regions. seemandhra CM should have the support of their party's telangana MLAs to rule. not the opposition party's MLAs from SA region. Never did in assembly they split on regional basis.

      and ur assumption of SA politicians show high handedness because of majority itself is a joke. notice urself. even on a issue like state division how they are fighting each other for political mileage caring a hoot for the issue. They cant even manage 20 MPs to sign on no confidence resolution, 

  22. Raghu says:


    the case of ap is unique because of the conditional merger in 56.

    i am not sure how much people in other states are divided based in region. if there is a similar feeling in other states then they have to fight too.

    People of tg feel that the media & politics in ap are stacked against them all along and it agitation had its highs and lows but a feeling of cultural ruin was always there and it became worse after Tdp became the torch bearer of telugu people as majority of its leadership is from one region and tried to push language over region which did not work

    • Kiran says:


      please practice honesty before you analyze causes. There was nothing "conditional" or even a "merger" in formation of AP. AP was formed like any other state via SRC act.  There was never a telangana state to be merged but hyderabad state which was dismantled based on the request by people of all langagues (kannada, telugu, marathi). GA agreement was an informal agreement between congress leaders which absolutely has no legal or consitutional validity.

      And every such agreement is about special entitlements to Telangana which are in violation of article 16 of constitution which grants equality of oppurtunity to everyone irrespective of region. Nevertheless most of such illegal agreements were succefully implemented in favor of telangana without much opposition form either people or politcians from non-telangana regions. The implementation track record is far better than the way Delhi or anyone have implemented more definitive contracts with people such as directive principles.

      The "feeling" is a bad excuse or basis to take major policy decisions to split state. And as an educated person you are expected to overcome such petty "feelings" and learn to think in the collective good of all people. I too had such "feelings" as part of growing up against dalits (dirty), muslims ("kasai") but i grew up.

      There is a certaily a problem of elite in AP which is confined to few castes even in telangana. It has deeper roots in castesim and generally the greivances of underpriveleged in all regions of AP are the same. The solution of division has absollutely no relation to problems you mentioned.

      The biggest problem is you utterly fail to see the consequences of unilateral division of 9 crore people. you think you can talk about "feelings" and expect crores of people to pay price in actual loss of oppurtunities. You think that wont effect you at all and you can just go on. How wrong is that ?

      • raghu says:

        Really article 16 of constitution which grants equality of oppurtunity to everyone irrespective of region then what are reservations ?  What are local/non-local quotas.  So what about the  6 zones in AP ?   The mulki rules (local jobs for locals only were the law in Hyderabad state)

        U may feel those provisions are not right and you can argue against them but TG people believe that those were agreements that were not honoured and want to have their own rule.   No one is against a common man coming to Hyderabad for a living and ofcourse like u said article 16 of the constitution should safeguard those right still

        • raghu says:

          What you dont experience always feels petty.  

          Its like a guy who is fair saying that making fun of skin color is no big deal

          Maybe u dont understand how it feels when what u speak is belittled and corrected. To just say its a slang does not cut it as i know numerous people who now have changed the way they speak telugu to suit Krishna district telugu as its been drilled by media that it is the right one.

          Maybe u dont understand how it feels when our slang is used for comedians/vilans but never for heroes

          Maybe u dont understand when TG festivals are not celebrated

          Maybe u dont understand when TG leaders only become CM's for 10 years in a 56 year period.

          Instead of having 3 out of 33 statues that belong to TG on tankbund we can have more that define our culture and language better.

          All the above maybe petty for u but for me are good enough reason to have a separate state.



          • Kiran says:

            Yes – I really dont understand why TG festivals need to forced down the throats of people who dont have interest. I really dont understand why slang of villians done by a private entertinment guy should have bearing on a state. Maybe you understand when southindians are generally humiliated as madrasis  or maybe you understand when CM of AP is kicked by a party secretary called rahul gandhi. maybe you understand why there is no single cricketer from AP or telangana in Indian team or maybe you understand why so few mps from telangana or Ap enjoyed significant ministries in India.

            There is no end to this raghu. You said something about fair and dark skin – are you demanding seprate state for dark skin people ? are you demanding some state action to protect dark skin people ? how will tg help those girevances.

            You have grievances but you have such a small heart you dont understand that so many others can have grievances . You propose a solution which is unrelaed to your grievances but pose real problems (not greivances).

            BTW – what accent is that guy speaking in the video.

            You have greivances that i can see but really no brain 

            • raghu says:


              Dont get personal.  I have not asked to respond to my initial post.  Be civi since you started the conversation.  I can say u are an idiot but refrain as it does not solve any purpose.   People with grievances are who come to streets and fight.  If they are justified they will get support otherwise their cause fizzles out.    Regarding being called madarasi i correct the ignorance and  regarding private entities maybe you dont understand how influential Media/movies are on our culture.  May NTR would have become CM if he were not part of that private medium.

              Like I said if our reasons are not good enough for you,  then you can fight too and let time determine the result. Good luck to you.

              • Kiran says:

                I was not personal. You dont control who responds to your post. So what will a TG state do about movies ? will a proposed tg govt start producing movies which wont hurt your sentiments ? will all the moves where villains had telangana accent will be banned in the proposed state.

                Dont act innocent and try to bluff you way out. You know the reasons you give absoltely dont have any bearing upon AP state.

          • kkm says:


            'Maybe u dont understand how it feels when our slang is used for comedians/vilans but never for heroes'

            The slang misconception is driving educated people like you. It clearly means, you have never visited other regions of AP. The slang is used media or public is nuteralised salng not seemandhra slang.

            Have you heard a hero using Kadpa slang or srikularm slang or godavari slang or nellore slang?

   dont .. but neither nellore nor godavari people complain about it..because they know we have a neutrialised slang when in public or media.

            T leaders successfully made issue of slang which people like yo endorsed without thinking twise…

        • Kiran says:

          Gentlemens agreement is outright illegal but still largely implemented as favor to telangana region. Other provisions such as zones needed a constitutional amendment i think 371d so that there illegality is overcome. i am saying think back as an educated person – whether legal or illegal – why does a rich velama from karimnagar need protection from dalit in a srikakulam becase of his region. This is not a legal arguement but a moral concern to give a balance to those silly shrieks of "justice".

          And nobody has to "believe" in honored or dishonored – they can check the facts. They are largeley honored. And even in expected case of "dishonor" there was no conspiracy and remedial measures were taken. its all part of adminstration efficiency in a third world country. Setting clock back 60 years is no solutions for these petty greivances.

  23. raghu says:

    Well pretty much entire Tg believes the agreements were completely ignored.  So its not something we both will reach an agreement on.

    I have not been impacted personally by those agreements.  For me when I look around and see all the media houses/ movies houses/ politicians/businessmen and who run them I dont see with the way the current setup is that TG language and culture will ever get to a point where its going to be celebrated in united state. So best way is to separate and u can try ur best to stop it. One of us in the end will remain happy and other unhappy.  

    • Kiran says:

      You dont have to beleive about agreements it you can verify – you expect me to endorse your laziness here ?Also telugu people  need not have to be that way. it is your pettiness and petulance that is making you think that way. There are better people both in telangana and SA who can take broader view and ensure a better future for all of us.

      I dont say your grievaces are petty with intention of diminishing you as person. They are petty because you and others like you absolutely display no understanding that millions of people in seemandhra who are not born lucky (money wise or community wise) can have similiar grievances. They are also petty because there is nothing a separate t can help with those greicances there apart from such symbolic nonsense which already exists. 

      One has to have a firm view of justice/injustice and decisions need to align. Petty thoughts and grievances cannot be allowed to dictate policy because of temporary public opinion or the converned guy is too lazy to really understand and verify the facts. Any rash action taken via pettiness and which results in real injustice will have hell to pay.

    • satya says:

      Pray tell me what is the TG culture that is different to other regions? or is the T culture static & uniform across T?

    • satya says:

      ur belief or mine does not matter. the numbers matter. and unfortunately they dont justify the logic behind the division. states cant be divided on apprehensions and assumptions

  24. Kiran says:

    Morever your arrogant tone which suggest do what you can to stop telangana shows you have not come here to understand or discuss. More for a duel. Unless you change that atitude your stay here in this site is not going to be helpful.

    One thing I can't help notice is how arrogant and lazy t sepratist actually  come across as but want everyone to shed tears about their petty grievances which they will measure arbitrally and improvise as it suits them . Real scumbags – unfortunately many people unaware of these petty schemers and are taken aback by their drama around their festivals, accent.

    That dashapathi pretty happily abandoned his accent when it suited him on TV.

  25. raghu says:

    Brother kiran,  Its not like I have posted here without readin previous posts including yours and not that i have not noticed your angry and arrogant posts.  Still I entertained your responses and just told my opinion.  Scumbags etc may suit your clan but are below us so go on.  Just because u have been roaming this site like a dog for a couple of years doee not give you ownership.  Let Mr.chakravarthy decide who can and cannot post on this site.  Dont expect any more responses from me to your posts so bark away

    • Kiran says:

      Good, feel free to shut up to my posts and thanks very  much for the "entertainment" you provided inspite of the grave reservations you had about me. I doubt you can really read anyway- I did not threaten to ban you nor did i claim ownership – i suggested what is helpful or not.

       BTW arrogance is not about usage of a word  here and there such as "scumbag" . It is far more evident in the way you condescendingly respond and you play the well rehearsed drama about telangana grievances. 

      • Kiran says:

        Actually though belated you took a wise decision. its obvious you have "feelings" and such numerous "feelings" its hard for anyone here not to hurt you.

        Based on your posts it clear if I and say Chakravarthy were to live in the same area in TG where you live and dont dance for bathukamma – your "feelings" will be hurt. Considering that standards are different for different communities – such as nobody will ask muslims to celebrate bathukamma  and tg upper castes themsevles never did until recently- maybe i have to be pothuraju myself and whip myself so as not to hurt your "feelings".

        Maybe unless i change my acccent to yours when I talk to in "your" area – your feelings will be hurt again. or maybe i should speak in telangana only when i act like matured hero – when i act silly i should go back to "andhrollu" accent.

        And god forbid if high command choses KKR as CM your feelings just go for a toss then.

        With such feelings in real life it is obvious you will have far tougher time battling them online.

        There is more earnestness for truth and justice in a single statement of mine than paras of nonsense here posted by t sepratists.

        • Chandra says:

          Kiran says:January 4, 2014 at 11:25 pm

          "its obvious you have "feelings" and such numerous "feelings" its hard for anyone here not to hurt you.

          "maybe i have to be pothuraju myself and whip myself so as not to hurt your "feelings".

          Thats brilliantly humorous. You made my day sir. Thank you.

          :)  :)

        • kkm says:

          Kiran, wonderful way of expressing how unreasonable are T people's about thier Identity. Moreover what makes me surpised is this is all aginast SA. If rest of India does not care foot to telugu people or AP regions inlcuding CBSE text books or more bent on brining TN into lime light by touching on their language or regions.. these pople dont feel deprived.

          When Marwari linving vicinity grabs their business opps or does not fall in line with thier traditions and language they dont feel deprivied.

          The feelings of T are very selective and only aginast SA acts.

          • Kiran says:

            Unfortunately Raghu is more likely to be mroe hurt and offended than see how ridiculous are these greivances and how anyone can have and infact many people do have such greivances but are not stupid to seek political solutions for it. These greivances were used by t sepratists to manipulate feelings.

            But the biggest problem is people like raghu and many reasonable people is they dont see how seperate telangana gives them any disadvantage.  The think once a law is passed in parliament people will just forget everything and things are hunky dory. That feeling actually demonstrates succes of AP state which established such peace esp in last 2 decades with TDP that people implicity assume once a law is made ppl have no choice but to follow. You won't such thinking in Kashmir or Bihar or UP.

            people like raghu were massive benefeciaries of the education and business market developed under guidance of AP state and with hardword of people form all other regions. I can make out by timings of his comments he resides in west and probably earns multiples of what his father earned. in normal circumstances that should lead to some gratitude and reciprocation to society which enabled it. Instead t propoganda increased more entitlement mentality.

            They think they are entitled to every ridiculous things based on their geography . thanks to rubbish propoganda about hyd developed under nizam and etc they think they are entitled to everything modern hyd has to offer. They are entitled to others celebrating their festivals, speaking their slang, private people from other regions make them as heroes – everything becomes a greivance. They dont even understand the arogance when they say as long as SA ir ordinary guy like rickshaw puller he will be "allowed" to stay.

            • P. Rao says:

               "–in normal circumstances that should lead to some gratitude and reciprocation to society which enabled it. Instead t propoganda increased more entitlement mentality."

              Kiran, You are right on the mark with your observations. Similar thing happened with Punjabi newly migrated NRI's in 1960's and 1970's and Khalistan movement.  Lots of blue collar and college educated Sikhs migrated to west during that time and started to earn a living wage for the first time.  Instead of being grateful to India they wanted a separate country for themselves and started funding the Khalistan separatists.  I see a lot of similarities with the present separate Telangana movement and the Khalistan movement.

              Telangana was a train wreck situation in 1948.  Coastal Andhras went with open heart and restored the T people to normalcy with gifts of language, education, and agriculture.  But the reaction from the movement created by KCR is any thing but gratitude towards their fellow Telugus.   

              On the other hand, British were no friends of  Andhras, but we still revere Arthur Cotton for building the two barrages and Charles Brown for rescuing the Telugu language from virtual extinction.  It is not worth losing our humanity on anything.    

  26. Chakravarthy says:

    Folks- There is no censorship on this blog. You are free to write anything you want, but please keep it clean. No abusive language. If someone uses abusive language, please bring it to my notice and I will delete the comments.

Leave a Reply to lakshmiaakula