November 08, 2013

My submittal to Telangana GoM- part 1/3

November 5, 2013

The Chairman
Group of Ministers (GoM)
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Government of India (GoI)
New Delhi


I am writing in response to the call by the GoM on Telangana formation for feedback. I write as an Indian citizen genuinely concerned about both the overall national interest and the welfare of the Telangana.

As desired by the MHA notification, I am providing feedback on each of GoM's terms of reference (ToR).

Nomenclature & methodology

I understand the cabinet intends to name the proposed new state as Telangana. This is a welcome move as the name represents the multiple facets of both the region and the decades long statehood movement.

The term "Seemandhra" has emerged in the recent past to denote the non-Telangana areas of current Andhra Pradesh. I urge the post-bifurcation residuary state may accordingly be named as Seemandhra. This nomenclature has the following advantages over the alternate option of retaining the existing name for the residuary state:

·         Denotes the combination of Seema (Rayalaseema) and Andhra
·         Eliminates the Hindi word "Pradesh"
·         Eliminates the possible confusion between the pre-bifurcation & post-bifurcation
·         Reinforces the fact that both Telangana & Seemandhra will be successor states of current Andhra Pradesh (AP)

Accordingly I use the term Seemandhra throughout this submittal to denote the residual state while reserving the terms "Andhra Pradesh" & "AP" to the present state.

The GoM is fully familiar with the various aspects of the long standing movement for Telangana as well the historical background of the region. The following broad methodology is accordingly suggested for the state formation process:

·         Telangana may be regarded as the sole successor of the erstwhile Hyderabad princely state as well as the post-accession part B state of Hyderabad
·         Seemandhra may be regarded as the sole successor of the erstwhile Andhra state
·         Both Telangana & Seemandhra may be regarded as successor states of Andhra Pradesh
·         To the extent practicable, the methodology may be based on an the likely consequences that may have occurred if Telangana & Seemandhra had not merged in 1956
·         Most importantly, the cardinal principle of "equality of states" must be stressed to ensure Telangana takes its rightful place as the twenty ninth state of India, on par with all other states. This requires the rights & responsibilities of both the future successor states be not impaired or fettered in any way.

Several aspects of the Telangana formation may depend on factual data and interpretations thereof. You are aware that the modalities of data collection, presentation & analysis as well as the reliability of the same are widely contested on both sides. In general, the data models adopted by the state government are neither susceptible to an audit trail nor rigorously tested for homogeneity. The situation is further complicated by the fact that senior politicians and officials have adopted a belligerent stand opposing Telangana formation.

In view of the above, it would be unfair to both Telangana & Seemandhra if irreversible decisions are taken without either the participation of the relevant stakeholders or the guidance of independent arbitrators. Data provided by the state government may therefore be used only for essential interim decisions followed by a due process of verification, negotiation, adjudication & adjustment in the post-bifurcation phase.


Determine the boundaries of the new state of Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the electoral constituencies, judicial and statutory bodies, and other administrative units

Telangana may be consist of territory of ten districts, namely Adilabad, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Medak, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal & Khammam as per the present boundaries. The other thirteen districts may be retained with the residuary state that may be renamed as Seemandhra.

Telangana formed as above would consist of 119 Vidhan Sabha members. The rest of the 175 MLA's would be members of the Seemandhra Vidhan Sabha. The lone nominated MLA may be treated as belonging to Telangana while a suitable nominee for Seemandhra may be decided as per the applicable due process.

There are 90 members in the present Vidhan Parishad. Telangana Vidhan Parishad may be constituted with 40 members with the other 50 MLC's may be allocated to Seemandhra. The allocation of Vidhan Parishad members representing local authorities, graduates & teachers may be based on the constituency they represent. MLC's elected by AP MLA's and those nominated by the Governor may be assigned to an appropriate successor state by applying the following criterion in sequential order:

·         If he has held an elected office in the past, he may be assigned based on the constituency he represented in the past
·         If he has contested for an elected office in the past, he may be assigned based on the constituency he sought to represent in the past
·         If he has held a public office, he may be assigned based on the local cadre he belonged to
·         If he was educated in a university, he may be assigned based on the local area he belonged to
·         Place of birth

In case of excess membership in any successor state, an appropriate decision on who shall forfeit his membership may be taken under the applicable due process. In case of a shortfall, the vacancy may be filled at the earliest opportunity.

All constitutional offices may be continued to be held by the existing office bearers in their respective bearers. The other positions may be filled by the applicable due process. It may be noted that the Chief Minister, Speaker and Vidhan Parishad Chairman hail from Seemandhra while the Deputy Speaker & Deputy Chairman belong to Telangana.

It is envisaged that the days leading to the "appointed day" and the immediate aftermath thereafter are likely to be tumultuous. Given the delicately balanced situation and the stiff resistance to Telangana statehood in the upper reaches of political leadership, the role of the Governor may become crucial to the effective functioning of the two successor states. It is therefore prudent to allocate the honorable Governor to Seemandhra while appointing an eminent person from outside political/bureaucratic spheres as the Governor of Telangana.

As per convention, a new Advocate General may be appointed for the two new states on the advice of the political leadership.

There are 18 Rajyasabha seats presently allocated to AP. As Telangana electors are 42.8% of AP's 5.79 crores in 2009, the state may be allotted 10 Rajyasabha seats on a prorata basis. The other 10 seats may be allocated to Seemandhra.

Using the criterion outline above for MLC's, eight Rajyasabha members (MA Khan, Nandi Yellaiah, Rapolu Anand Bhaskar, Sudha Rani, Hanumantha Rao, Govardhan Reddy, Devendar Goud & Renuka Chowdary) may be allocated to Telangana. Eight other members as well as the lone vacancy similarly relate to Seemandhra. Allocating the sole non-AP member (Jairam Ramesh, honorable Rural Development Minister) to Seemandhra would ensure minimum disruption to the honorable MP's. The lone vacancy may be filled by election in the Seemandhra assembly.

The constituencies reserved for SC/ST in the Loksabha & Vidhan Sabha may be continued to be so reserved till the next delimitation exercise.

There are 17 Loksabha constituencies in Telangana and 25 in Seemandhra presently. Based on the 2009 delimitation exercise, the electors in the two successor states are 2.48 crores & 3.31 crores respectively. This yields a skewed result of 14.58 lac electors/Loksabha seat in Telangana as opposed to 13.24 lacs in Seemandhra. This anomaly may be corrected before the next elections by increasing the Loksabha seats in Telangana to 18 and a corresponding decrease in Seemandhra. The Vidhan Sabha membership in both states can be changed in the ratio of 1 Loksabha: 7 Vidhan Sabha members.


Look into the legal and administrative measures required to ensure that both the state governments can function efficiently from Hyderabad as the common capital for 10 years

It may be noted at the outset that the constitution does not mention the term "capital" anywhere. The so called "common capital" is essentially a political decision that is being sought to be imposed through executive action.

It is worth recalling the situation that prevailed during the agitation for the erstwhile Andhra state. Initially the Andhras claimed Madras should be the capital of the proposed new state. However these efforts failed to materialize due to the strong principled stand taken by the central leadership. In the violent aftermath following the demise of late Potti Sreeramulu, the center conceded the demand for the Andhra state but held firm in its resolve that Andhras forego their claim on Madras.

This gave rise to a demand that Madras be made a "common capital" or a "joint capital" of both the states. Justice KN Wanchoo Committee was constituted to "set out, consider and report on the financial and other implications of this division and the various questions which will arise in the course of implementing the decision of the Government of India more particularly by reason of the non-inclusion of the city of Madras in the Andhra State”.

Justice Wanchoo recommended that the "temporary capital" of Andhra may be located in Madras for a period of 3-5 years. He noted however: "It should be clearly understood that the jurisdiction over the city of Madras will in all matters rest in the residuary State (Madras) and the Government of the new State (Andhra) will merely be in the nature of guests or tenants in Madras city".

Acknowledging the Tamil fears that Andhras will not leave Madras after the period of 3-5 years, Justice Wanchoo refuted these on the ground that "Andhra Government would have no powers in the city of Madras and one would normally expect that such as Government would like to go to its own territory, where it can exercise all the powers of Government, as early as possible". He further recommended that essential parts of the Andhra government to be shifted from Madras "at once". He identified these parts as "the Governor, the Legislature, the Ministers and the Secretariat and certain other essential Heads of Departments like Inspector General of Police".

In the end, wiser counsel prevailed and the "temporary capital" idea was given a decent burial. The brief history of the erstwhile Andhra state was full of bickering and political high drama, mostly centered on the location of its capital.

The situation today is similar or even worse:

·         Much of the turmoil caused in the recent weeks by ambitious political interests centers around the city of Hyderabad
·         These high decibel campaigns are trying to generate a fear psychosis on the future of Andhras in Hyderabad
·         The memories of bitterness over Madras city persist
·         The imbroglio over Chandigarh raises apprehensions among Telanganites that Andhras will not let go of Hyderabad
·         The probability that motivated agitations demanding a share of Hyderabad will continue through the "common capital period" is high
·         A fresh round of disturbances as the "expiry date" comes close is almost certain
·         The question of Seemandhra capital location is likely to be as contentious as before

It is therefore imperative that the idea of "common capital" is dropped. This is essential to ensure the smooth functioning of the two successor states with minimal transition effect.


Take into account the legal, financial and administrative measures that may be required for transition to a new capital of the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh

As stated above, there are serious apprehensions that Seemandhra capital will be a contentious issue. The location of the new Seemandhra must be settled by the appointed day via consultation among the different stakeholders or by central government decision if consultations do not bear fruit.

Following the spirit of the Sribagh Pact, the Seemandhra High Court may be located in a region other than that housing the capital. For example, if the capital is located in Rayalaseema, the High Court may be situated in Andhra. It may be recalled that Andhra lawyers have been agitating for a long time for a High Court Bench to be located in Guntur.

The reorganization act may therefore provide for a separate Seemandhra High Court. The location of the court may be decided in consultation among the different stakeholders or by central government decision if consultations do not bear fruit.

The allocation of barristers to the respective high courts may be on the he following criterion in sequential order:

·         If he has held an elected office in the past, he may be assigned based on the constituency he represented in the past
·         If he has contested for an elected office in the past, he may be assigned based on the constituency he sought to represent in the past
·         If he has held a public office, he may be assigned based on the local cadre he belonged to
·         If he was educated in a university, he may be assigned based on the local area he belonged to
·         Place of birth

Seniority of practice may be used as a "tie breaker" if so required.

The transition may be handled as follows:

·         The essential parts of the Seemandhra government including Governor, Legislature, Ministers, Secretariat, the upper echelons of bureaucracy (e.g. Police, heads of departments) to move by the appointed day
·         Establishing a High Court in Seemandhra with a skeleton staff by the appointed day
·         Fully staffing the Seemandhra High Court within one year from the appointed day
·         Most of the Seemandhra state level government machinery (excluding only those functions that face serious logistical difficulties) to move within one year from the appointed day
·         Complete transition within two years from the appointed day

Physical separation of Telangana & Seemandhra facilities is essential throughout the transition period. Telangana state must receive priority in the allocation of facilities in order to ensure that all Government functions continue at the same facility without relocation at the end of the "temporary capital period".

The following measures are required to ensure peaceful & vacant possession at the designated period:

·         The costs associated with the High Court shall be borne by the central government in totality
·         To ensure the spirit of "guests or tenants" it must be ensured that the Seemandhra government reimburses all other expenses relating to rent, maintenance, upkeep, utilities, security etc.
·         The identified facilities may be handed over only after the essential parts of the Seemandhra government move to the identified location in its boundary
·         The lease agreements shall be for a strictly limited specific duration with no extension clause
·         The security deposit shall be fixed at twenty five times the estimated annual expenditure towards rent, maintenance, upkeep, utilities, security etc.

·         Any financial assistance/package provided to the Seemandhra government shall be linked to the milestones specified above and released only after the milestone is achieved


  1. Who are you to ask us to leave hyd?

  2. What about the other points?

  3. A state with 119 MLA's can't have council

    1. As per article 171 (1), the MLC strength can't exceed one-third of MLA's. Minimum 40 MLC's are required.

      There are 119 elected MLA's plus 1 nominated i.e. 120. One-third of 120 is 40.

      Section 13 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, assigned 54 assembly seats to Haryana against the "not less than sixty prescribed by article 170 (1). This was contested in Mangal Singh & Anr v. Union of India, 1966. Justice JC Shah delivering the unanimous judgment wrote: "On the plain words of Art. 4, there is no warrant for the contention advanced by counsel for the appellants that the supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions, which by virtue of Art. 4 the Parliament is competent to make, must be supplemental, incidental or consequential to the amendment of the First or the Fourth Schedule".

      As you can see, a reorganization act can make changes to the "not exceeding" sections of legislative bodies.

  4. Jai,

    You have provided valid reasons why there should not be any common capital period. Though your argument looks convincing regarding the chaos that might happen with common capital, is it not unfair if new capital for seemandhra starts functioning immediately after division and all state govt employees of seemandhra have to leave to new capital immediately? Ideally they should have some time to make their future plans about whether to leave city or job.

    How about reinstating the name Andhra Rashtram instead of Seemandhra state?

    1. Two reasons for my preferring the term Seemandhra:

      - The erstwhile Andhra state & the residual AP are not totally identical
      - To acknowledge the importance of Seema

      The term should actually be Seema-Andhra but hyphenation may be confusing.

  5. Mr"jai

    I observed from one of the comments. somebody asked who are u to ask us to leave Hyderabad.Y ou quite magnanimously held that you are not asking anybody to leave Hyderabad. Now some economical figures and facts for the Telanaganites speaking without conscience and justice.

    1.The hyderbad city ( what I mean is HMDA) has been genrating about 45% of total revenue genration of hyderbad.
    2. About some 40000 cores are being genrated by IT industry
    3.Some 15000 crores are being genreated from pharmasutical industry
    4.Another 40000 crores are being generated annually in the form of central taxes collected from whole of the presentday ANdhra Pradesh.

    Thus a total of 180000 crores are being contributed by Hyd. to central and state kitty in the form of taxes. The fact is both Telanagana and Seemandhra regions can't survive financially without hyderabad. The Telanaganites may argue that Hyd. is a 400 year old city and what is Seemandhra contribution to it s development. The answer is simple. The Hyderbad City till 1983 is known only for annual ritual of communal disturbances thanks to the congres's divide and rule policy. The so called glitz and razmattazz of a metropoliatn city now u see has only developed post 1983 after NTR came to power and established some peace in Hyderabad. It is also a fact that during Jai Andhra Movement the so called " clonialists" and " looters" of Seemandhra wanted their separate state without even claiming any share in Hyderabad of those days.

    I am an Andhrite residing in Delhi for the last thirty years. So it doesn't personally affect me whether AP remains united and bifurcated. But seeing at the moral bankruptcy of politicians we elected and the hollowness( in stead of " hallowness" ) of so called intelectuals, may be this Telugu tribe deserves to divided. But of course, i am confident that this drama " bifurcation" based on "imaginary" and "percieved injustices" will never reach its desired ill-conceived outcome. As regards your analogy with Madras city, simply no paralles could be drawn because at that time the territory comprising the capital was not separating. Thank u.

    1. Mr. Hota, thanks for your comment.

      I have covered the revenues/assets related aspects in the final part of the series (

      You will note I am asking for the entire period from 1956 be covered in the investigations. To my knowledge Hyderabad has always been net positive in revenues. I believe the Committee will come to the same conclusion i.e. Hyderabad has always subsidized the other districts & not the other way round as claimed by some.

      I hope you are not saying Telangana should stay with Andhra because the latter can't survive on their own.

      I will reply to the other points below.

    2. "The Hyderbad City till 1983 is known only for annual ritual of communal disturbances thanks to the congres's divide and rule policy"

      This is like saying Vijayawada is known for its "annual" caste riots based on the post-Ranga murder arson. Please avoid stereotyping on the strength of 1-2 incidents.

      "Seemandhra wanted their separate state without even claiming any share in Hyderabad of those days"

      Au contraire, the anti-Mulki (aka Jai Andhra) agitation started because of jobs in Hyderabad.

      "But of course, i am confident that this drama " bifurcation" based on "imaginary" and "percieved injustices" will never reach its desired ill-conceived outcome"

      Your call. I am confidant Telangana will be a reality soon. Don't say no one warned you!

      "As regards your analogy with Madras city, simply no paralles could be drawn because at that time the territory comprising the capital was not separating"

      A fair approach can't be based on who is asking for what. The analogy with Madras is valid because the points like "we built Madras" etc. are the same.

    3. Mr.Jai

      Thanks. I seemed to have strirred up your conscience a little bit. The purpose of providing financial statistics is not to suggest that the Seemandhra can't survive without Telanagana.It is only to draw your attention to the illogical and irrational demands of the so called protagonists of Telangana. My reservations about Telanagana formation, at least before 2014 general elections have genesis in the follwoing:

      1) ANything not based just, rational and equitable premises can't happen and can't sustain even if happens. Bhadrachalam is one glaring example interalia so many other factors.This the moral side of the story.
      2) coming to the more mundane matters, the principal Protagonist KCR himslef will prove himself to be a main impediment to the Telanagana. Formation of Telanagana at this juncture will not cater to his gradoise and ambitous future plans,
      3) Again owing to the KCR's antics, the way he is proving himself to be the most untrustworthy partner to deal with, Congress is becoming increasingly jittery about its futile exercise. The plight of congress is only to be seen to be belived when the results of elections to five states come out in December.
      4) The tone and tenor of BJP has been gradually changing since 12th Aug2013 with their stance at GOM yesterday indicating how they are going to act in coming months.

      Considering the above, my rational assessment is that the Telanagana can't be certainity before 2014 elections. It stands a feeble chance after 2014 elections that too depending upon the " landslide" victory of TRS at hustings which I doubt very mcuh.

      Notwithstanding my difference of opinion with u, anyhow I appreciate your painstaking research for facts.I only wish that U look at things in an unbiased and rational way and different from rantings of self serving politicians,

    4. Dear Mr.Jai,

      I forgot to say one thing. The communal riots of Hyderbad proir to 1983 are not just " 1-2 incidents". If you could bother to peep into past and collect some data, u will be astonished to know that the late 60s and whole of 70s witnessed these incidents.

      Regarding the Jai Andhra movement, the issues is whether it because of Mulki rules.The Issue is one region wanted to separate then without any disputes/unsurmounatble problems as we are experiencing today. What I wanted to say had they been allowed then both the states would have charted their own course of destiny.

    5. "It is only to draw your attention to the illogical and irrational demands of the so called protagonists of Telangana"

      I am not convinced that the demand is illogical/irrational. Much of the "evidence" in support of this line of thinking has little value.

      "ANything not based just, rational and equitable premises can't happen and can't sustain even if happens"

      Agreed. We have two such examples: the short-lived Andhra state & the current AP

      "Formation of Telanagana at this juncture will not cater to his gradoise and ambitous future plans"

      I think we should look beyond KCR/TRS. Too much of the present debate is centered around personalities. This is impeding the touchstone of logic that you rightly pointed out.

      Regarding the Congress's "plight" after the "semi-finals" or BJP's "wavering", these are but a part of the long list of "brahmastras" that some people hope will prevent Telangana formation. There are also people who hope BJP will prevent Telangana bill by stalling Loksabha on the coal scam. This represents a state of denial.

      "I only wish that U look at things in an unbiased and rational way and different from rantings of self serving politicians"

      I am ready for a debate on anything I publish. The debate should however be on merits instead of accusations of "parroting".

    6. Communal riots: When I was growing up, all I heard about Hyderabad from everyone was good. The reputation of "communally sensitive place" came only after the Ganesh Chaturthi time riots (if I remember right when NTR was CM). The adjective "annual" does not sound right.

      In my understanding, the anti-Mulki agitation achieved its principal objective i.e. a share in Hyderabad jobs. This is why the erstwhile Jai Andhra leaders are plumping for "samaikyam".

      The two states can still chart their own destiny. Unity at gun point will fail.

    7. Dear Mr.Jai

      - Firslty when I raised the issue of communal riots in Hyd., it was not my intention to tarnish the image of a city. Only to bring forth the hollowness of Pro-Telanaganites argument that Hyd.had been developing or developed for the last 400 years.Yes,Golconda & Charminar etc.existed for centuries.But they neither improved the lives of any commonman nor they generated any employment avenues.If the city has developed it is because of investment friendly atmosphere and the investment brought in by big industrialists some of whom happen to be from Seemandhra region.In the era of liberalisation it is sin qua non that investment from private is a must for economic prosperity,It is an another matter that if u don't invite or accept any invetment from private partners/capitalists in the new state of Telangana.

      - Secondly when I say something about irrational and unjust premises, it is becuase this spell of agitation from 1999 to 2013 hugely based on so many misconceptions and falsehoods spread deliberately by disgruntled and unemployed politicians., Some of the falsehoods are
      - Pro-Telangana people say ours is a struggle of 60 years. Some say 40 years. But the person who started this spell of strugle who became aware of all these injustices and plunder of wealth,denial of opportunities woke up only in 1999( when he was denied a cabinet berth).Moreover this state has not witnessed any separatist agitattion from 1973 to 1999.Either the problems of Sirisella cheneta farmers/workers,or Palmuru labourers' migrations or Nalgonda Floride crisis are more or less uniform to all three regions of AP.As per economic statistics Chittor is the most backward district of AP followed by Adilabad and then Srikakulam.The falsehood here is to blame every problem on united state or seemandhra people or their politicians.Then the question arises what these people who are shedding tears for Telangana were doing all these years.For example KCR says he will bring golden age to Telangana once it is formed but remains silent if any body asks him what he had doing all these years to Telanagna in general and his constituency in particular.That is why I say if a state is formed on the basis of emotional rhetoric ot spreading hatred among regions it will not be good for both the parties.I am afraid the way the tempers/stakes are being raised by TRS, it will not be good for the would be neibhours. There will only be disputes and commisssions.
      - Example of unjust demands: Every pro-Telangana person says he wants Telangana as existed prior to 1956. Then Bhadrachalam, Munguru,Kodada and Ashwaraopeta were part of Andhra region prior to 1956. On one side they are not ready to share an inch of Hyderabad and hiow can they, by their own logic, lay claim to those areas. On one side u say u can/t share any coal with Andhra though GOI holds49% off stake in those mines but u in the same breath lay claim to gas from seemandhra region. In otherwords such disputes are being given life that the two states would fight these issues for decades in boundary commissions and tribunals.
      - One last question to all pro-Telanganites, with 42 MPs( out of whcih 33 MPs are ruling party MPs which formed the mainstay of Congress govt. for the last two terms), AP could not get a single new train for the state in the last 10 years. This is the extent of clout we enjoy at Delhi. Then how a small state with 17 MPs could have any influence on its up-stream and downstream neibours in the matters of river water sharing, new projects or for that matter anything.How then the golden age could be ushered in Telangana is anybody's guess.
      Illiterate masses anyway could not understand this but I expect the intelligensia atleast to ponder over these issues.
      By the way I see that u had a long wish list sent to GOM. I wish at least half of them would be fulfilled.

      Thank U.

    8. True Hyderabad has developed a good extent. But is it not because of the city's inherent strengths?

      I thought we agreed to leave out personalities from the debate. I will not therefore respond to your references to KCR.

      Andhra was also formed on emotional rhetoric. This did not create any tension between TN & Andhra (or AP later on)

      Bhadrachalam etc.: I have responded on this subject elsewhere on my blog.

      Coal vs. gas: I have covered this subject elsewhere on my blog.

      There is no nexus between state size & "clout".

      I did not submit a "wish list" to GoM. My approach is that issues should be settled mutually or adjudicated. All states should be on an equal footing and unfettered in this process.

      The assertion that issues increase with reorganization is not valid. The issues remain the same but come up into the open. An issue that stays underground can't be resolved.

    9. I will respond tommorrow as I am occupied elsewhere.

    10. Sir, can you please open a new thread by posting a new comment instead of using "reply" option, thanks a lot.

    11. Sorry about interjecting in a serious exchange of views!

      Just to clarify .. communal riots in Hyderabad have occurred in the period of 1978-82 (starting with Rameeza bee case in 1978). Of course, it is courtesy of 'Grand Old Party' !

      - Ramachandra

    12. @Ramachandra:

      Thanks a lot for your comment.

      I agree there were communal riots in Hyderabad. I only disagreed with the term "annual ritual".

      As per the Hindu story you cite, the first major incident was in 1978. Even this (Rameezaa Bee riots) was more anti-police rioting. The communal angle comes from the religion of the protestors, not the targets.

      The second major incident (Ganesh Visarjan 1984) appears to be partially influenced by the TDP power struggle.

      The third major incident in 1990 is alleged to be partially influenced by Congress infighting. The year saw "politically inspired" violence leading to change of CM both in AP & Karnataka.

      The important question here is whether the events of the past are related to the GoM ToR (and therefore this blog posts).

      ToR # 5 relates to law & order, security etc. If you believe communal flare-up is likely in the future based on the past experience, the answer is yes. Anything else is out of scope of this blog.

  6. Mr. Jai: Yes. IMHO, past experiences (in the case of communal violence) do have relevance to future. More so, when some of them have covert motives. Mr. Balala (Malakpet MLA) has told a group of us an interesting aside of how the Kurmaguda disturbances occurred in the last year. All we need is small ripple to cause flare ups.

    BTW, I do get disturbed with the rancour that is getting dished out in media / blogs by various protagonists. Since it is not related to these blog posts .. I won't dwell on that any further.

    1. Mr. Ramachandra: If you believe there is a possibility of communal violence, it is definitely within the scope of discussion per ToR5.

      I would be glad to hear your views on the following:

      What are your ideas on how to prevent recurrence?
      Do you believe the possibility of communal trouble will increase, decrease or be unchanged due to Telangana formation? Why so?


Please be brief. Please respect everyone's privacy and do not reveal any private information about yourself or others.

Suggestions on improving the quality of this blog are always welcome. All other comments should be relevant to the subject of the post. I will delete all spam and messages with abusive or vulgar language.

All material in my blog is original. I will remove any copyrighted material if notified.

You may not use the material from my blog without my permission. I will not refuse any reasonable request as long as you credit me and provide a link to my own post.

If you post rejoinders, rebuttals or supplementary posts in your own blog, please leave a comment with a link.