plz send this letter to jus.Srikrishna committee....plz.TELANGANITES...mail id : vkduggal.ccsap@mha.gov.in

To
Sri Krishna Committee,
Member Secretary, Room # 248,
Vignan Bhavan Annexe,
Moulana Azad Road,
New Delhi – 1 1 0 0 1 1.

Respected Sir,
If development was the justification for keeping an alien ruler in place, India should have never got
freedom from British rule! Andhra state would not have been formed out of Madras state in the name of
self respect.
World knows “Jallianwala bagh, General Dyer, 1919 yr – more than 1000 people dead in brutal firing”
and as the same in Telangana, Under the leader ship of then Chief Minister Kasu Brahmananda Reddy,
1969 yr - 370 students were shot dead. Now in the present situation after 23-12-2009 with the
Government ambiguous decisions and false statements by the Politicians, more than 380 people
martyred. People of Telangana are not only confused but also lost hope on the system and are sacrificing
their lives for separate state hood of Telangana.
Especially, there is a lot of insecurity developed in Telangana people due to constant changing of stance
on Telangana by all political parties and leaders.
Though we Telangana people are not happy with committee and the purpose, we do appreciate committee
members and we have high respect on the committee members as individual’s capability, honesty,
professionalism & dedication.
The reason we not happy with committee is, so far many committees formed and did nothing, none of the
committee recommendations are implemented, and hence as usual everybody understands that all
committees are meant for delaying the process of creating Telangana state.
But, we hope that as a result of Sri Krishna Committee report fact findings Telangana people won’t be
presented with one more G.O instead of a separate state.
Unless we get our own state there is no way the people of this region are going to get the justice.

We are addressing this letter to our desire and unequivocal support to the bifurcation of Telangana from
Andhra Pradesh State There are plenty of reasons why we need to separate ourselves from the United Andhra Pradesh.
Growing Regional Disparities in Development
Regional disparities in development have been growing in Telanagana region, especially in the postmerge
period. Telangana region constrained to the extent that fundamental human needs cannot be
attained. There is clear disparity between the potential ability to fulfill basic needs and their actual
fulfillment.
The neglect of agriculture, rural development and the social sectors in the post-merger period and the
consequent rise in rural distress together with the concentration of private investment and proliferation of
economic opportunities in the developed regions has brought into sharp focus the regional divide or the
rise in inter-State disparities in development.
If we observe the situation of people in Telangana , we can clearly understand how structural inequalities
that systematically deny the people their basic human needs constitute a structural violation of human
rights like unequal share of power to decide over the distribution of resources, denial of Fair-Share in
employment, resources, social structure, social institutions, Education institutions, financial institutions
and trade regimes results in global inequality.
Development versus ‘Sentiment’ for Telangana
By attributing the demand for separate Telangana to the “sentiment” (for Telangana), some sections of
the political leadership are only evading the real issue. There is no religious or ethnic ‘sentiment’, not
even of language, at issue. One can, no doubt, read in this demand some assertion of ‘regional identity’,
but this is not something which cannot be rationally explained. The simple and straight-forward
explanation is that people have seen, through their own experience, that ‘development’ in the sense of
equitable share in water resources, jobs, opportunities for enterprise and career advancement and
adequate voice in political decision-making is not possible within the inte-grated State and that separate
Statehood alone can ensure justice for them.
Therefore, what is at issue is not whether development has been taking place. Indeed, in a democratic
polity like ours some development has to take place in different parts of the country including even the
remotest areas. The issue really is about the rate and quality or pattern of development. Apart from

equity, such as due share in investment allocations, quality also refers to the cost, risks, and sustainability
of development.
If you look at the situation of Telangana region (before & after merge), statistics of state resource
allocation, Investments & development, we can easily find sufficient of evidences, which shows that
Telangana has not received its due share in investment allocations, and that the ‘surpluses’ from
Telangana, that is, the difference between what ought to have been spent and what has actually
been spent, have been diverted to the other regions. For the Telangana region the per capita financial
resources should be higher than the average for the Andhra Pradesh State, because, as for the Finance
Commission transfer to States, 25 per cent of devolution is based on population and as much as 75 per
cent is based on criteria like lower per capita income and other indicators of backwardness. Planning
Commission transfers too have a significant weightage to low per capita income.
In this context I would like to bring to your notice that there is no way of ascertaining exactly how public
expenditures, as a whole, are distributed between different regions in Andhra Pradesh. The relevant
information is not being disseminated ever since the abolition of the Telangana Regional Committee in
1973, under the wrong notion that sharing of such information would breed regionalism.
The growth that has been taking place in Telangana may be characterized as high cost growth. For
example, the irrigation map of the region has changed completely. Tank irrigation occupied an important
place a few decades ago. But now, over 70 per cent of irrigation is through ground water and deep tube
wells in large parts of Telangana. This means for a unit output growth there has to be much greater
investment now. Moreover, we do not have any information on such vital aspects as the quantity of
water to be supplied for Telangana on account of the proposed irrigation projects including from
‘assured’ sources.
Further, farming has become highly risky affair in Telangana. For a given failure of rainfall, the
fluctuations in output are much greater now when compared to the earlier decades. There is much greater
distress being reported from the rain-fed regions dependent on groundwater for irrigation where the
suicide rates for farmers are high. Telangana region accounts for as many as two-thirds of the total
number of farmers’ suicides reported in the State between the years 1998 and 2006. The water crisis
has affected sustainability: Land left fallow (uncultivated) in Telangana has increased from 25 per cent of
cultivable land in the early 1970s to as much as 40 per cent by 1999-2000. Pollution from industrial
projects in certain areas has aggravated the crisis.

The desire for separate Telangana is greater among the educated classes, that is, students, teachers, NGOs
and professionals in general. This is explained by the increasing awareness leading to greater sensitivity
to ‘discrimination’ among such classes in respect of employment and promotions or career prospects,
especially because of the rising importance of the services sector at higher levels of development. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the separatist movement has gathered momentum in the post-reform period
when the opportunities for such classes have proliferated in the services sector.
Socially Inclusive Telangana
Statehood for Telangana is a national issue and not just a regional one. This is because it represents the
ongoing social change in the country for the empowerment of people through decentralized governance
by broadening and deepening the working of our democratic system. Such empowerment and governance
would enable articulation of the real problems of the people and their solution. This would inevitably
result in ‘Samajika’ or ‘socially inclusive’ Telangana.
Inclusiveness could not be achieved so far in a bigger State because the voice of the disadvantaged
sections remained fragmented. Experience shows that the traditionally entrenched interests are
perpetuated in bigger and heterogeneous States because of their easy connectivity arising from their
access to large resources, power and influence. The weaker sections, on the other hand, can come
together, organize themselves and raise their voice effectively in a relatively homogeneous State because
of common history and traditions and hence easy communicability.
For illustration, tribals are the most disadvantaged section socially and economically with negligible
political voice. They live in remote areas and are subjected to land alienation on a large scale. Hardly any
initiative has been taken so far in Andhra Pradesh to restore their lands despite the strong
recommendations made by a High-Level Committee headed by a Minister constituted by the present
government. (Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2006; Rao, 2007) There, the administration is alienated
from the people and has been a breeding ground for extremist activities. But this has been treated not as a
socio-economic issue, but mainly as a law and order problem. Because of this, the plight of the Girijans
has been perpetuated and the extremist activities have been surfacing time and again, notwithstanding the
claims of success in this regard by the authorities.
According to the 2001 Census, the Scheduled Tribes population constitutes around nine per cent in
Telangana as against five per cent in the rest of the State. Thus, as much as 60 per cent of the ST
population of the AP State is concentrated in Telangana. Their voice can be expected to be more effective

in separate Telangana, not the least because their representation in the State Legislature and other elected
bodies at different levels would be proportionately greater.
Similarly, the population of Muslims is as high as 12.5 per cent in Telangana when compared to 6.9 per
cent in the rest of the AP State. As many as 61 per cent of Muslims of AP live in Telangana, of whom 60
per cent are spread over in different districts other than Hyderabad. They too can be expected to have
greater political clout in separate Telangana in determining their fortunes as they can more easily relate
themselves with the rest of the disadvantaged sections of the society in the struggle for a better and more
secure livelihood. It must be noted in this context that social harmony between people professing
different religions and speaking different languages has been proverbial in Telangana because of their
shared history and traditions spanning over centuries.
The SCs account for about 16 per cent of population in Telangana as well as in the rest of AP. The census
does not give the figures of BCs. But we know from different sources that socially and economically
disadvantaged sections, including SCs, STs and BCs, constitute not less than 85 per cent of the
population in Telangana. Radical land reforms were the prime agenda for the peasant movement in the
1940s. However, not enough time was available for this process of agrarian reforms and radical social
transformation to run its course. In fact, it was interrupted with the integration of Telangana with the
SeemaAndhra region, so that it still remains an unfinished revolution or an unfinished task. In a larger
and heterogeneous State like AP there is no adequate perception of this problem by the dominant political
leadership which hails basically from the developed parts of the State.
Thus the weaker sections constituting a large majority of population in Telangana and, for that matter, in
SeemaAndhra would be better able to articulate their problems and politically assert themselves in
separate, smaller and relatively homogeneous States. The formation of a Telangana State would thus
strengthen the forces of social inclusion and secularism in both the States.
Inclusive Governance feasible in smaller States
The population of Telangana is over three-and-a-half Crores now - much more than three crores for the
whole of Andhra Pradesh at the time of its formation. The demands on governance have multiplied over
this half-a-century. Apart from commitment to the development of the region, a smaller State being more
easily accessible to the common people can intelligently and speedily grapple with their problems.
Moreover, governance at the grassroots can be improved in a smaller State by strengthening the
Panchayati Raj Institutions which have been deprived of their functions, finances and functionaries. It is
indeed ironical that the ruling party in Andhra Pradesh, which owes allegiance to Rajiv Gandhi, who
visualized the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, has not taken any initiative to revitalize
these institutions. On the contrary, every attempt has been made to undermine these institutions by
floating several top-down schemes and parallel implementation structures, even naming some of these
schemes after Rajiv Gandhi! In smaller and relatively homogeneous States like Telangana and Andhra,
the empowerment of these local, elected institutions can be expected to be high on the agenda, among
other things, because of the greater pressures these elected representatives can bring to bear on the new
establishments.
Consensus for Telangana
All the major political parties in Andhra Pradesh have come out in favor of the formation of a separate
Telangana State. Even within the Congress party, there is a consensus in its favor among the leaders,
legislators, ministers in the state as well as the centre belonging to Telangana.
The demand for the Telangana State is not opposed by the common people from the rest of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, not withstanding hostility from certain sections of business and political elite. This is
amply borne out by the stand taken in favor of separate Telangana state by parties like the Telugu Desam
headed by Chandrababu Naidu, CPI, BJP, Praja Rajyam Party Chiranjeevi in 2009 Elections and
congress during 2004 Elections, even in All Party meeting on 8thDec2009 consensus were taken.
But then what does one mean by consensus? The first States’ Reorganization Commission (SRC), which
recommended in 1956 formation of the separate Hyderabad State consisting of Telangana, defined
consensus as the one reached among the Telangana people themselves. This is clear from its
recommendation that after five years Telangana could be merged with Andhra only if two-thirds of the
Telangana legislators opted for it. But consensus has come to mean among everyone at the national and
State levels, except the people of Telangana!
This is not quite fair because, in the first place, Telangana was merged with the Andhra region in 1956
without ascertaining the wishes of the people of Telangana through their elected representatives as
recommended by the SRC. Secondly, when there is a clear opposition to Statehood for Telangana from
sections of the power elite belonging to the dominant region of the State, it is not fair to insist upon
consensus among all the constituent regions when the issue concerns a particular region only. Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister, had openly stated that there should be a divorce between
Andhra and Telangana, if the latter so desired at any future date

The demand for the Second SRC to settle the issue could have some basis if the first SRC recommended
the formation of composite Andhra Pradesh State, and disrupting such an arrangement, it could be
argued, would require re-examination of the whole issue by a similar high level expert and quasi-judicial
body. But the First SRC had recommended the formation of Telangana State after examining all the
relevant aspects and their recommendation was not honored.
In a situation like this, the will of the people of Telangana, as expressed by the large majority of the
legislators from the region, can alone be the guiding principle. This has been expressed time and again in
favor of separate Statehood in the last four decades through the democratic process vindicating the
position taken by the SRC. Even in the by-elections held in May 2008, it is common knowledge that the
major political parties, including the Congress, approached the voters pledging themselves in favor of
Statehood for Telangana. Therefore, in the case of this last election, the rallying slogan of different
parties favoring Telangana should be taken as an index of support for separate Statehood.
Despite this background, the recent decision of the State Government on the last day of the final session
of the State Assembly to constitute a Committee, consisting of the representatives of both the State
Assembly and the Legislative Council, for examining the issues connected with Statehood for Telangana
will not carry any credibility whatsoever. This has only strengthened the suspicion that it is a
diversionary move on the eve of the general elections, especially in the light of the past experience that
even the recommendation made by a high level body like the SRC favoring Telangana was ignored by
the powers-that-be. This move is virtually a non-starter as major political parties have declined to
nominate their representatives on this Committee.
Broad based, Non-partisan Movement
Leaders from Telangana have been going to Delhi for making representations in most rational terms; they
have even been called to Delhi occasionally by the ‘High Command’, but basically, it is the power
structure in AP that has become decisive in determining the outcomes. Therefore, the focus of action for
achieving separate Telangana has not been Delhi alone; it has been backed by the peaceful and
democratic movement in villages and towns in the Telangana region.
Political parties espousing separate Telangana have been engaged in electoral battles. This is
understandable because the decision to carve out a separate state is ultimately a political one involving
Parliament and governments at the Centre as well as the State. But the movement for separate Telangana
itself has not been ‘engineered’ by political parties as some people would have others believe. Rather, the political parties supporting separation have been receiving sustenance from the deep-seated and
widespread sentiment for separate Statehood for Telangana nurtured by various movements - political as
well as non-political, including the ‘Mulki’ agitation - Since the times much before the formation of AP
The demand for separation is far more widespread now than in 1969 when the agitation for separate
Telangana was first launched. It has now engulfed farmers, youth and women on a much larger scale.
It is, however, true that some political parties have displayed opportunism by building up their political
fortunes using this sentiment and betraying the cause once their narrow purpose was fulfilled. But despite
such betrayals, the broad political movement for separate Statehood itself has survived and gained
strength, beyond electoral considerations, because of its genuineness and deep-seated social base.
Such an independent movement has been complementary to electoral politics and served to ensure the
accountability of the elected representatives
The experience of Uttarakhand has been instructive in this respect. After getting disgusted over repeated
betrayals by the political parties, the intelligentsia there took charge of a broad based, non-partisan
movement, led and nurtured it by educating and building awareness among the people at large and
ultimately succeeded in achieving separate Statehood.
Statehood for Telangana: The Current Stalemate
The newly created smaller States, namely, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, have achieved
much higher growth rates in their GSDP than the targets set for the Tenth Five Year Plan, whereas the
growth rates achieved by their parent states, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh fell
significantly short of the targets. (Planning Commission, 2008; Rao, 2009) Further, the growth rates
achieved in the first two years of the Eleventh Plan, that is, 2007-08 and 2008-09, by Chhattisgarh and
Uttarakhand were significantly higher than those achieved by their parent States. Apart from releasing the
creative energies of the people, viability of smaller States may have contributed to better governance,
attracting greater private investment from outside as well as planning and utilizing resources more
efficiently. (World Bank, 2007)
An extremely encouraging development is in respect of Bihar, where the average growth rate achieved at
9.7 per cent per annum during these two years was significantly higher than for Jharkhand at 5.8 per cent
per annum. (Aiyar, 2010; Rao, 2010) This may be explained by improved governance, of late, in this
State, facilitated not the least by the fact that with the creation of Jharkhand, Bihar has become less heterogeneous and much smaller in area, with the size of its population getting reduced by about 25 per
cent.
Experience has demonstrated the failure of regional planning to ensure adequate development of
backward regions within the larger States. This is explained by the politics of planning in democracy
inherent in such States characterized by regional unevenness in development. The experience of
Maharashtra and Gujarat amply illustrates the failure to develop backward regions, despite the existence
of constitutional provisions for setting up Regional Planning Boards and the powers entrusted to the
Governor to review the progress of development under such regional plans. This experience underlines
the need for conceding separate Statehood for certain backward regions like Telangana and Vidarbha.
The observations of B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of our Constitution, on the desirability of
smaller States are prophetic. He welcomed the recommendation of the States Reorganization
Commission in 1955 for the creation of Hyderabad State consisting of Telangana region and creation of
Vidarbha as a separate State. Further, he envisaged the division of Uttar Pradesh into three States
(Western, Central and Eastern); Bihar into two (North and South or present Jharkhand); Madhya Pradesh
into two (Northern and Southern); and Maharashtra into three (Western, Central and Eastern). He was for
linguistic homogeneity of a State in the sense of ‘one State-one language’ and not ‘one language-one
State’. He thus envisaged two Telugu speaking States, three Marathi speaking States and a large number
of Hindi speaking States. (Ambedkar, 1979)
While arguing for smaller States, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar was guided basically by two considerations. One,
no single State should be large enough to exercise undue influence in the federation. Drawing from the
American experience, he thought that smaller States were in the best interests of healthy federalism. On
this issue, his views were similar to those of K.M. Panikkar, set out in his note of dissent to the Report of
the States Reorganization Commission. Second, he thought that socially disadvantaged sections are likely
to be subjected to greater discrimination in bigger States because of the consolidation of socially
privileged or dominant groups. (Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, 1979)
Over the last half-a-century, two new dimensions have been added. Population growth and the
multiplicity of developmental functions have rendered governance in large-size States inefficient.
Secondly, in the context of development planning under democracy, significant regional diversities with
respect to the historically inherited levels of infrastructure and institutions within certain large States
have given rise to severe tensions concerning the distribution of benefits from development. These tensions have reached a point where harmonious development seems no longer possible without their
break-up into smaller States which are relatively homogeneous.
¨The agitations for separate Statehood for Telangana in the Telangana region as well as for Samaikhya
(United) Andhra Pradesh in the Andhra region are in full swing now. The agitation in Telangana is
unprecedented in its sweep, being universal or, at any rate, far more widespread than in 1969, involving,
among others, students, farmers, women and even children. The movement is virtually taken over and led
by the students, all of whom were obviously born at least a decade after the agitation of 1969. It appears
as if history is repeating itself or time is standing still for over four decades so far as this issue is
concerned.
Curiously, in the case of the Andhra region, history appears to have been overturned. The ‘Jai Andhra’ or
separate Andhra agitation of 1972-73 was triggered-off by the land reform legislation and the validation
of Mulki Rules (preference for natives of Telangana in employment) by the Supreme Court, because of
which the big landed sections as well as educated youth could lose in the integrated State. Over the last
four decades, however, certain leading business sections, including those involved in real estate business
from the SeemaAndhra region developed a big stake in Telangana, particularly in and around Hyderabad
city. Thanks to the lop-sided urbanization and concentration of financial sector services and IT industry
in Hyderabad in the post-reform period, the educated youth—most of whom were born after the ‘Jai
Andhra’ agitation like their Telangana counterparts—could understandably have developed an emotional
identification with the capital city and so a stake in Samaikhya (United) Andhra Pradesh.
Guided by the consensus among the major political parties in favor of formation of separate Telangana
State, as espoused in their election manifestos and reiterated by them as recently as on December 7, 2009.
The Central Government on December 9 announced its decision to initiate the process for the formation
of the Telangana State. Within hours, this decision triggered off a counter-agitation in the Andhra region
for a united Andhra Pradesh, leaders of the major political parties taking sides by getting divided
horizontally on regional lines. It is not clear whether these leaders did not mean what they promised
earlier on Telangana in the expectation that no worthwhile initiative would come from the Centre or
could not anticipate the adverse public reaction in the Andhra region in the event of any favorable move
on the issue. In any case, this has placed the Centre in a difficult situation leading to the stalemate in the
resolution of the crisis.

As it is, the Constitution fully empowers the Centre to carve out new States, the role of the State
legislatures being limited to merely expressing their views on the proposed Bill by the Centre. While
politics cannot be wished away in a democracy and the Centre cannot normally be expected to proceed
against the wishes of the majority of legislators of a State, ultimately, politics in a democracy have to
come to terms with the provisions of the Constitution and respect the universal demand of the people of a
region for separate Statehood. Also, in the long-run, the youth of any region in the modern age, imbued
as it would be with the democratic spirit, would come to respect the people’s wishes from the other
region for separate Statehood. Besides, a pride in the capacity to develop opportunities in one’s own State
is bound to come into play. Addressing the legitimate concerns of the stakeholders is essential to
facilitate this process.
There is no alternative to the Centre as well as the leaders of both the regions taking initiatives for a
constructive dialogue for resolving the outstanding issues by addressing the legitimate concerns of the
stakeholders, to pave the way for separate Statehood for Telangana and thus end the perpetual uncertainty
undermining the harmonious development of both the regions. While agitations are necessary for the
assertion of legitimate rights, in a democracy, constructive dialogue is indispensable for bringing such
aspirations to fruition.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The demand for a separate state of Telangana is naturally raising a number of questions. Some are raised
out of ignorance, some out of bias and some out of genuine concern for maintaining status quo. In any
case these questions need to be answered. An attempt is made here:

Why the issue of separate Telangana is being raised once again?
The demand of the people of Telangana for a separate state is not a new development. It was voiced
much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to be raised even thereafter.
The reason for the resistance of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra was fear of exploitation in the
enlarged state and the reason for their reluctance to continue in the present state is the actual experience
of being exploited.

Why demand for separate Telangana state continues to persist?
Whenever separation movement reached its peak there were many agreements made (Gentlemen’s
Agreement of 1956, Eight Point Formula, Five Point Formula, Mulki Rules, Six Point Formula, G.O. 610
of 1985), which were never implemented and this is an open secret which every individual knew. Reason
is that these agreements were made among a couple of politician (against people consent) for their own
benefits (personal or political) and always power (in the form of CM or influencing Central) was with
Andhra Politicians to decide on these agreements whether to implement or not. Due to their personal or
political benefits Telangana MLA's or MP's are not able to raise their voice against any injustice done to
Telangana.
Why Telangana people are not accepting the Sri Krishna committee?
We need to clearly understand that Telangana people are not accepting the purpose of forming the Sri
Krishna committee but we do appreciate committee members and we have high respect on the
committee members as individuals and their capability, honesty, professionalism & dedication.
The reason is many committees have been formed and many recommendations & agreements were made
but none of them were implemented.
The Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956, which was an assurance of fair play given to the people of
Telangana to facilitate the formation of Andhra Pradesh, was scuttled the very same day on which the
state was born, by the very same “Gentlemen” who were signatories to the agreement. The result was a
massive revolt of the people of the region in 1968-69 demanding separation of Telangana from the state
of Andhra Pradesh. It has come to be known as Jai Telangana Movement. The governments of the time in
the state and at the centre then woke up and tried (or pretended) to undo the damage done to the region.
The first step taken in that direction was the All Party Accord of January 1969 arrived at a meeting of the
leaders of all political parties in the state convened by the then chief minister Brahmananda Reddy. But it
was shelved in less than six months time. Thereafter, a couple of packages were announced by the prime
minister of the time, Indira Gandhi, styled as Eight Point Formula and Five Point Formula. When the
modalities of giving effect to these packages were being worked out the supreme court of India gave a
historic judgment validating, what were then known as, Mulki Rules. This judgment upheld the rule of
reserving employment and educational opportunities available in Telangana exclusively for the residents
of this region. But the political elite of Andhra region did not digest these corrective measures. The result
was another agitation for a separate state, and this time for a separate Andhra state. It is referred to as Jai
Andhra Movement. The leaders of Jai Andhra Movement demanded either scrapping all the safeguards
given to the people of Telangana including the judgment of Supreme Court of India on the validity of
Mulki Rules or bifurcating Andhra Pradesh into Andhra and Telangana states. It may not be out of place
to recall that Venkaiah Naidu and Chandrababu Naidu, among others, were in the forefront of Jai Andhra
Movement. The government of India yielded to the pressure of political might and money power of the
majority region and nullified, by an act of parliament, almost all the safeguards given to the people of
Telangana including the annulment of judgment of the highest judicial authority of the country on Mulki
Rules.
As an alternative, the so-called Six Point Formula, a diluted form of safeguards, was foisted on the
people. Even this formula has been, and continues to be, violated with impunity, robbing the people of
Telangana of whatever little was left in the name of safeguards.

Is it not a bogey raised, off and on, by the disgruntled politicians?
If it were to be so, how could the demand sustain itself for nearly five decades? Opportunistic elements
do infiltrate in to any movement of the people. But such aberrations cannot under-mine, every time, the
genuine aspirations of the people. When formulations ranging from the extreme left (PWG) to the
extreme right (BJP) of the political spectrum support - or claim to support – the demand for a separate
state, in some form or the other, does it not reflect popular urge of the people? Can it be brushed aside
for ever? What about the voice being constantly raised by the intelligentsia and practitioners of learned
professions who do not have any vested interest in practical politics? Is it of no consequence? Can it be
ignored just like that?

Is there no alternative to the demand for a separate state?
All possible alternatives have already been experimented with – The Gentlemen’s Agreement, The All
Party Accord, The Eight Point Formula, The Five Point Formula, The Six Point Formula and what not?
Were they not experiments to safeguard the interests of Telangana within the integrated state of Andhra
Pradesh? Have any of these agreements been implemented? Have any of these solemn pledges been
redeemed? Have any of the judicial pronouncements including the verdict of Supreme Court of India
been honored? Now what else is left to be further experimented with?

What did the Chief Ministers who belonged to this region do while they were in power?
P. V. Narasimha Rao, M. Chenna Reddy and T. Anjaiah did become Chief Ministers of the state .But
what was the duration of stewardship of all of them put together? It was hardly 5 years, in the state’s
history of 53 years, that too in bits and pieces - to be precise, in four spells and each spell spanning a few
months. It should be noted that J. Vengal Rao was a migrant from Coastal area. He never came out of his
moorings and he never identified himself with the hopes and aspirations of people of Telangana. Some of
his decisions caused immense damage to the region.
P. V. Narasimha Rao made a feeble attempt in 1972 to implement the verdict of Supreme Court
validating the Mulki Rules. The verdict was in favor of Telangana. But the reaction from the other
regions was so instantaneous and so wild that in the process P. V. Narasimha Rao lost his Chief Ministers
ship and the Telangana region lost all its safeguards. Even the verdict of the highest judicial authority of
the country was nullified. This can happen to any leader from Telangana in that position. Because, their
survival depends upon the support of the area which has a numerical majority in the political setup and
has greater money power to influence the political process and administrative machinery. The problem,
therefore, lies essentially in the nature of political equations between the developed and backward regions
and not necessarily in the persons holding positions of power. The States Reorganization Commission
eloquently commented upon this as well. Even if it is assumed that the leaders of a region becoming chief
ministers can contribute to the development of that region, then why do the people of Rayalaseema
complain of backwardness?
This state has been ruled for two decades, and continues to be ruled even now, by the chief ministers
hailing from that region. And that too not by ordinary men, but by stalwarts like N. Sanjeeva Reddy
(twice), D. Sanjeevaiah, K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy (twice) and N. Chandra Babu Naidu (already twice).
They too could not - and would never - go against the dictates of the affluent region for their political
survival.

Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra also are backward. What is so special about Telangana to
ask for a separate state on this score?
It is true that these two regions also are backward. They too have been, like Telangana, victims of
neglect. But Telangana has an additional problem i.e. diversion of its resources, which legitimately
belong to it, for the development of other regions. Best - or worst - examples are diversion of river waters
and other natural resources, financial resources, employment opportunities and so on. This has been going on unabated. The other two regions do not have such problem. That Rayalaseema is relatively
better developed than Telangana in several aspects is a different story. So is the case with regard to
industrial development of Visakapatnam in North Coastal Andhra.
Further, Telangana can be a viable unit as a separate state and can be better developed. This was also
endorsed by the SRC. Above all, the people of the region want to have it. Why the people of Telangana
should keep quiet even if their counterparts in Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra are contented with
whatever is given to them?

How many smaller states can this country have?
More than half of the states in the country are smaller than Telangana. They are: Assam,
Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Jammu &Kashmir,
Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Chatteesgarh, Jarkhand and Uttaranchal.
Further, West Bengal and Kerala also are smaller than Telangana in geographical area. Then why all
doubts about and objections to conferring statehood on Telangana, which would be the largest of the
smaller states in the country

What about linguistic unity and cultural identity?
Next to Hindi, largest number of people in India speaks Telugu. If there can be nine Hindi speaking states
with the possibility of some more coming up, what is wrong in having more than one state for Telugus? It
may be recalled that the SRC recommended the creation of separate Telangana state in addition to the
already existing Andhra state. The SRC, in fact, never wanted language to be the sole criterion for
reorganizing Indian states. The most intriguing part of the whole argument of the so-called linguistic
unity is that the Telangana dialect is ridiculed with impunity especially by the cine field and mass media.
Who controls them is an open secret. Can such things go on without the connivance of ruling classes?
Otherwise what hell the agencies expected to censor films and TV serials are doing? In such humiliating
conditions what is the significance of linguistic and cultural unity? Has it not become totally
meaningless?

Are the Naxalites responsible for the backwardness of Telangana?
Of late, this question has become some sort of a political slogan of the ruling classes. Therefore, it needs
to be examined dispassionately. While doing so one need not agree with the philosophy of Naxalites and
certainly need not endorse their acts of violence. The issue on hand is different.
If the argument of the government is based on facts it should be substantiated with empirical evidence.
How does one explain the following facts?
Mahabub Nagar district is less affected by the Naxalites Movement as compared to the North Telangana
districts. Then how is it that Mahabub Nagar is more backward than all the districts of North Telangana?
It is not only the most backward district in the region and the state but is also one of the backward
districts in the entire country.
Kothagudem Thermal Plant and Ramagundam Thermal Plant are in the areas where the
Naxalites have been very active for the last three and a half decades. How is it that various stages of
development of Kothagudem Thermal Plant are being completed ahead of the schedule? How is it that
Ramagundam Thermal Plant is getting awards year after year for its good performance?
The entire coal belt is in Naxal - affected areas of the Telangana region. The coal produced here is
transported on a large scale to other regions without any hindrance. Have the Naxalites stopped this
activity any time?
Even a private sector industry, the AP Rayon’s, is functioning well in the midst of Warangal forests - the
nerve centre of Naxalites activity. How is it functioning if Naxal are a hindrance?
Visakhapatnam district also is an important centre for Naxal. How is it that Vizag has emerged as a major
industrial town not only in the state but also in the entire country?
Besides not starting any new industries in the region, several industries established by the muchmaligned
Nizam are being closed one after the other. Examples: Azamjahi Mills, Sir Silk Factory,
Antargaon Spinning Mills, Republic Forge and DBR Mills. The Allwyn factory has already been sold.
The Nizam’s sugar factory is also put on auction. Are the Naxalites responsible for the closure of all
these industries?
The Telangana Movement of 1968-69 was a massive revolt of the people against the exploitation of the
region. Where were the Naxalites then?

t should be realized that the growth and spread of Naxalites Movement in Telangana is a consequence of
backwardness of the region and not a cause for its backwardness. But the powers that be are trying to
reverse the causal relationship. The people of the region have a feeling, and justifiably so, that the ruling
sections will see to it that the issues emanating from the Naxalites Movement are never attended to with
the seriousness and earnestness they deserve. They have a vested interest in doing so. They can use it as a
pretext to further neglect the region in the realm of development.

What is the role of political parties in this regard?
The Congress party and its leaders of the region have the reputation of talking about Telangana when
they are out of power and forgetting about it while in power.
The Telugu Desam, they supported Separate Telanagana during 2009 state elections
The Communist parties, boast of their preparedness to fight injustice and discrimination found
anywhere in the world. But, what has happened in Telangana during the last four and a half decades
never bothered the comrades.
The BJP has excelled all other parties in playing hide and seek with this issue.
The Praja Rajyam supported Separate Telangana, after Dec9, 2010 they changed their Decision.
If political parties and political leaders fail to protect the interests of the people whom they claim to
represent, should the people subject themselves to misery and suffering forever?
History tells us that it is the will of the people that ultimately prevails. It is only a question of time.
I would like to request you to visits our place and consider our consensus, grievances and how we were
betrayed by SeemaAndhra rulers last 53 years in all the aspects.
If you happen to receive hundreds of copies of this text, you may safely conclude that this is the
collective opinion of educated, open-minded and socially conscious of Telanganites.

Sincerely,
Telangana Bidda
Jai Hind - Jai Telangana
JAI JAI TELANGANA
JAI HO TO TELANGANA MARTYRS JAI HO JAI HO........
JAI TELANGANA
JAI JAI TELANGANA.