విశాలాంధ్ర మహాసభ కార్యక్రమాలు, మా ప్రసంగాలు, రచనలూ, పత్రికా ప్రకటనలూ, మేము నిర్వహిస్తున్న సదస్సులను మీరు ఆసక్తితో గమనిస్తున్నందుకు నాకు చాలా ఆనందంగా ఉంది.
మీకు కావల్సింది అదే కద, ఎందుకు ఆనందంగ ఉండదు?. విశాలాంధ్ర ముసుగులో కావల్సినంత పబ్లిసిటీ దొరుకుతుంది మరి.
మేము ఎప్పుడూ ఎక్కడా తెలంగాణా ప్రజలకు, ప్రాంతానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా మాట్లాడలేదు. అటువంటి భావన మీకు కలిగి ఉంటే అది సరిఅయినది కాదు అని నేను స్పష్టంగా చెప్పగలను.
ఓహో! ఇక్కడి ప్రజలు అభిమానించే ప్రొఫెసర్ జయ్శంకర్, బుర్రా రాములులపై బ్లాగుల్లో విషం చిమ్మినా, మీ వర్క్‌షాప్లో తిట్టిపోసినా అదికూడా వ్యతిరేకంగా మట్లాడీనట్లు కాదేమో.
ఆ మాటకొస్తే మేము ఏ ప్రాంతానికి, ఏ ప్రాంత ప్రజలకీ వ్యతిరేకం కాదు. మేము విశాలాంధ్ర కొనసాగాలనే అభిమతం కలవాళ్ళం. ఇంకా కొంచెం ముందుకు వెళ్లి చెప్పాలంటే మేము విభజన కోరే వారికి కూడా వ్యక్తిగతంగా వ్యతిరేకం కాదు. మా వ్యతిరేకత కేవలం విభజన వాదం పట్ల మాత్రమే. విభజన వాదుల పట్ల ఏమాత్రం కాదు.
అందుకేనా ప్రతిరోజూ వెబ్‌సైట్లోనూ, టీవీల్లోనూ వేర్పాటువాదులు, తెలబాన్లూ అంటూ రాతలూ, కూతలూ?
విభజన వాదం రాష్ట్రంలోని అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలో ఉన్నదని మా అభిప్రాయం. విభజన వాదులు అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉన్నారు. అలాగే సమైక్య వాదం అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉంది. సమైక్య వాదులు అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉన్నారు.
మీకు కావల్సింది అదే కద, ఎందుకు ఆనందంగ ఉండదు?. విశాలాంధ్ర ముసుగులో కావల్సినంత పబ్లిసిటీ దొరుకుతుంది మరి.
మేము ఎప్పుడూ ఎక్కడా తెలంగాణా ప్రజలకు, ప్రాంతానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా మాట్లాడలేదు. అటువంటి భావన మీకు కలిగి ఉంటే అది సరిఅయినది కాదు అని నేను స్పష్టంగా చెప్పగలను.
ఓహో! ఇక్కడి ప్రజలు అభిమానించే ప్రొఫెసర్ జయ్శంకర్, బుర్రా రాములులపై బ్లాగుల్లో విషం చిమ్మినా, మీ వర్క్‌షాప్లో తిట్టిపోసినా అదికూడా వ్యతిరేకంగా మట్లాడీనట్లు కాదేమో.
ఆ మాటకొస్తే మేము ఏ ప్రాంతానికి, ఏ ప్రాంత ప్రజలకీ వ్యతిరేకం కాదు. మేము విశాలాంధ్ర కొనసాగాలనే అభిమతం కలవాళ్ళం. ఇంకా కొంచెం ముందుకు వెళ్లి చెప్పాలంటే మేము విభజన కోరే వారికి కూడా వ్యక్తిగతంగా వ్యతిరేకం కాదు. మా వ్యతిరేకత కేవలం విభజన వాదం పట్ల మాత్రమే. విభజన వాదుల పట్ల ఏమాత్రం కాదు.
అందుకేనా ప్రతిరోజూ వెబ్‌సైట్లోనూ, టీవీల్లోనూ వేర్పాటువాదులు, తెలబాన్లూ అంటూ రాతలూ, కూతలూ?
విభజన వాదం రాష్ట్రంలోని అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలో ఉన్నదని మా అభిప్రాయం. విభజన వాదులు అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉన్నారు. అలాగే సమైక్య వాదం అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉంది. సమైక్య వాదులు అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉన్నారు.
అలాగా! తెలంగాణలో లక్షలాదిమంది, కోట్లాదిమంది విభజనను వ్యతిరేకిస్తున్నారని ఈమధ్య తెగ చెప్పేస్తున్నారు, ఆ లక్షలాధిమంది, కోట్లాదిమంది మీతో వచ్చి చెప్పారా?, ఈవిషయం మీకెలా తెలిసింది?అంతమంది విభజనవ్యతిరేకిస్తుంటే ఏమిటి ఒక్కచోట కూడా ఒక్క సభకానీ, ర్యాలీ కానీ జరగలేదు?
ఈరోజు కూడా పరిస్థితి అదే. కోస్తా రాయల సీమలలో విభజనకు మద్దతు పలికే వారున్నారు. తెలంగాణలో ఉన్నారు. అలాగే ఆ రెండు ప్రాంతాలలో కలిసి ఉండాలి అనేవారు ఉన్నారు. తెలంగాణా లో కూడా కలిసి ఉండాలి అనేవారు ఉన్నారు. ఒక ప్రాంతంలో ఒక సారి ఒక అభిప్రాయం బలంగా వ్యక్తమయ్యింది. మరొక సారి మరొక ప్రాంతంలో మరొక భావన బలంగా వ్యక్తమయ్యింది.
తెలంగాణలో కలిసిఉండాలనే భావన బలంగా ఎప్పుడయినా వ్యక్తమయిందా?
మాకు కావాలని. మా మాటలు చెప్పుకోకుండా మమ్మల్ని అడ్డుకోవద్దని. మా అభిప్రాయాలతో మీరు ఏకీభవించక పోయినా మా మాటలు చెప్పుకునే హక్కును మమ్మల్ని అనుభవించనివ్వండి అని.
సరే, మీరు చెప్పినట్లు తెలంగాణలో మిమ్మల్ని మీటింగు పెట్టుకోనీయలేదని అనుకుందాం. మరి మీ వెబ్సైటు ద్వారాగానీ, బ్లాగుద్వారా గానీ, టీవీ చర్చల్లో కానీ, ఢిల్లీ వర్క్‌షాప్లో కానీ సమైక్యంగా ఎందుకు ఉంచాలో ఈరోజువరకూ ఏదయినా చెప్పగలిగరా? కలిసి ఉండేందుకు మీరు ఇక్కడి ప్రజలకు చేస్తున్న ఆఫర్ ఏమిటి? ఎంతసేపు ఇదిగో మీరే ఎక్కువ అభివృద్ధి చెందారు, కావాలంటే ఈజీడీపీ లెక్కలు చూసుకోండి, అనడం, లేదా ఇక్కడి మాసమస్యలు చెబితే అందుకు మేమెలా కారణం అని కప్పదాటు సమాధానం చెప్పడ తప్పితే మీవాదన ఏమిటి?
ఈరోజు కూడా పరిస్థితి అదే. కోస్తా రాయల సీమలలో విభజనకు మద్దతు పలికే వారున్నారు. తెలంగాణలో ఉన్నారు. అలాగే ఆ రెండు ప్రాంతాలలో కలిసి ఉండాలి అనేవారు ఉన్నారు. తెలంగాణా లో కూడా కలిసి ఉండాలి అనేవారు ఉన్నారు. ఒక ప్రాంతంలో ఒక సారి ఒక అభిప్రాయం బలంగా వ్యక్తమయ్యింది. మరొక సారి మరొక ప్రాంతంలో మరొక భావన బలంగా వ్యక్తమయ్యింది.
తెలంగాణలో కలిసిఉండాలనే భావన బలంగా ఎప్పుడయినా వ్యక్తమయిందా?
మాకు కావాలని. మా మాటలు చెప్పుకోకుండా మమ్మల్ని అడ్డుకోవద్దని. మా అభిప్రాయాలతో మీరు ఏకీభవించక పోయినా మా మాటలు చెప్పుకునే హక్కును మమ్మల్ని అనుభవించనివ్వండి అని.
సరే, మీరు చెప్పినట్లు తెలంగాణలో మిమ్మల్ని మీటింగు పెట్టుకోనీయలేదని అనుకుందాం. మరి మీ వెబ్సైటు ద్వారాగానీ, బ్లాగుద్వారా గానీ, టీవీ చర్చల్లో కానీ, ఢిల్లీ వర్క్‌షాప్లో కానీ సమైక్యంగా ఎందుకు ఉంచాలో ఈరోజువరకూ ఏదయినా చెప్పగలిగరా? కలిసి ఉండేందుకు మీరు ఇక్కడి ప్రజలకు చేస్తున్న ఆఫర్ ఏమిటి? ఎంతసేపు ఇదిగో మీరే ఎక్కువ అభివృద్ధి చెందారు, కావాలంటే ఈజీడీపీ లెక్కలు చూసుకోండి, అనడం, లేదా ఇక్కడి మాసమస్యలు చెబితే అందుకు మేమెలా కారణం అని కప్పదాటు సమాధానం చెప్పడ తప్పితే మీవాదన ఏమిటి?
Rite.. rite.. super cheppavu anna.. gooba gui mannadhi
ReplyDelete"అలాగే సమైక్య వాదం అన్ని ప్రాంతాలలోనూ ఉంది."
ReplyDeleteHow did Prabhakar arrive at this conclusion? He counted the votes for Srinivas Goud, Congress candidate in Banswada.
To prove that lakhs of people in telangan are supporting visalandhra Parakala should have contested from banswada with Visalandhra as agenda. Then we should have know exactly how many peoiple would vote for his Visalandhra stand.
ReplyDeleteYou want evidence for unitedAP in banswada though TDP won recently some corporate elections in Hyd city. Does this mean you don't consider Hyd city as a part of telangana?
ReplyDelete1."తెలంగాణలో కలిసిఉండాలనే భావన బలంగా ఎప్పుడయినా వ్యక్తమయిందా?".
ReplyDelete1929 lo ne ee abhiprayam vyakthamayindi kada thammi. This has been there for 75 years in Telugu land. You want examples? Even this was expressed in 2009 also. It will be expressed in 2014 also.
2. కలిసి ఉండేందుకు మీరు ఇక్కడి ప్రజలకు చేస్తున్న ఆఫర్ ఏమిటి?"
Offer isthe kalisundamane? KCR adiginda offer. Em kaavaleti? CM aa PM aa?
Manam Enduku vibhajana koruthunnamo cheppanantha varaku....desham lo ne gaadu...ee prapancham lo ne evvadu manalni pattinchukodu.
1. ఓహో! 1929లో, 1269లో జరిగిన ముచ్చట్లగురించా నువ్వు జెప్పేది? When did it happen in Independent India? Don't assume who ever does not vote for TRS is all against Telangana, this shows only your ignorance levels.
ReplyDelete2. People see that their lives get better if Telangana happens. If you ask them to be united are you showing any thing better with united andhra? There is enough info about reasons for division, only visha-andha people cannot see it.
@Anon 1
ReplyDeleteSo you mean whatever vishandha claim that lakhs of people in Telangana supporting united state is only about those andhra settlers in Hyderabad? How pity?
Anonymous of 23 November 2011 22:06:
ReplyDeleteDid the TDP candidate contest on united AP platform? No. She won the bye-election caused by her husband's death.
Anonymous of 24 November 2011 03:59:
ReplyDeleteWhy was the Sribaug pact of 1937 signed only by Andhra & Rayalaseema politicos? Why was the All Party Meeting of 1953 (to determine response to Nehru's offer) attended only A&R leaders? Both these happened much later than 1929.
I have few questions that some expert could answer without any bias towards a particular region.
ReplyDelete1. Telangana supporters keep saying telangana region of Hyd state was merged with SeemaAndhra against the majority wishes. If so why would telangana people vote to Congress, which was responsible for AP formation (the Gentlemen agreement was between Congress politicians of two regions), in AP state assembly elections held only in telangana region (because SA had elections earlier) in 1957?
2. Hyd state had 16 districts (8 telugu [telangana], 5 marathi and 3 kannada). Telangana merged with SA, the marathi districts with Bombay state and the kannada districts with Mysore state. Mysore and Bombay states were more advanced than SA in 1956. So my question is why would Nehru object only for telangana merging with SA but not to the marathi region merging with Bombay state and the kannada districts with Mysore state?
3. Why the Gentlemen agreement (and/or mulki rules) needed for merging of telangana with SA but not to the merging of marathi and the kannada regions with more advanced Bombay and Mysore states respectively?
Anon above:
ReplyDelete1) Was there any other alternative? Note that the only alternative existed at that time communists were acually in favor of Visalandhra.
2) SRC has recommended for the merger of marathi and kannada districts to be merged with those states but regarding Telangana they gave the option of being a separate state and recommended for merger if at all only after the election with the consent of people.
Reason: Telangana is big enough to sustain as separate state and its distinct identity, wish of the people.
3) As said above for Kannad and marathi districts there was no other option, but telangana had the option and its leaders at that time were not interested for merger due to their genuine concerns. Gentlemen agreement was ploy that andhra leaders played to expedite merger without waiting for the elections.
The reason for andhra leaders over interest was so obvious: they did not have funds to run the government and they did not have a capital city and their secretariat was under shamiayana in Karnool.
No. Fazal Ali Commission was a ploy of Nehru, Azad, et al who did not in the first place want the trifurcation of Hyderabad State. However, due to overwhelming popular opinion for trifurcation and linguistic states, Fazal Ali Commission too supported the linguistic states formula but to keep Hyderabad separate even in truncated form it recommended separate Telangana for at least 5 years. That could also be a Nehruvian ploy since Nehru was quite sore at the big agitation for Andhra State, martyrdom of Potti Sriramulu and the compulsion under which he had to announce the formation of Andhra state though he was opposed to its formation in his heart. But the Telugu people, more so the people of Telangana in those days themselves defeated this Nehru-Azad-Fazal Ali Axis and rejected the Fazal Ali recommendations. Andhra Assembly unanimously voted for Visalandhra and Hyderabad Assembly by two thirds majority came in favor of Visalandhra. So the people of Andhra and Telangana together forced the merger against the innate wishes of Nehru, Azad, etc.
ReplyDeleteI.M.Shrama,
ReplyDeleteWe are not discussing about your imaginations about what could have been Nehru's ploys at that time but discussing about what has happened.If Telangana people and leaders were also involved in forcing for the merger then there was no need for Gentlemen agreement at all.
There were apprehensions from Telangana about the merger. Andhra leaders expedited merger for their slefish reasons and to cool down Telangana leaders agreed for the clauses in gentlmen agreement. Now what ever were the apprehensions of Telangana leaders at taht time have become reality which forced Telangana people for seperate telangana movement in 1969 and now.
By the way it is false propaganda that Hyderabad assembly has passed the resolution of merger with two third mejority. It was already proved wrong by seeking resolution proceedings of hyderabad assembly with RTI act and there wasn't any.
Also Hyderabad assembly with representatives from Kannada, Maharashtra regions has no authority to decide Telangana fate. That was the very reason for Fazal Ali recommending for waiting until next election.
I.M.Sharma,
ReplyDeleteNote that assembly resolution in the matter of formation of states is just a procedural ritual, parliament is the ultimate decider. If your theory about Nehru ploy was true Nehru would have denied the state even if both states pass the resolution. The fact is that Nehru was influenced by the then andhra lobby just like how current UPA govt is being influenced by andhra lobby with the likes of Kavooru, Lagadapati, Rayapati.
"current UPA govt is being influenced by andhra lobby with the likes of Kavooru, Lagadapati, Rayapati"
ReplyDeleteReally, Kavoori and Rayapati couldn't manage to get ministerial berths for themselves though they are very senior, then how they were able to influence Congress high command to destroy Congress in AP by making for and against statements about telangana in Dec. 2009.
@Anon 26 Nov 8.13
ReplyDeleteLagadapati, Rayapati, Kavooru and likes are part time politicians full time businessmen. They know verywell that they cannot get Ministirial berths from Manmohan being parttime politicians. But they all got what they really require..i.e. membership in parliament standing committee that decides govt's financial spending.
Anon though your questions are very basic level good that you are asking. They will be an eye opener for many people like you.
@Viswaroop
ReplyDeleteReally, they are more politicians than MMS. If MMS could become PM whey cann't they become ministers? Also if they cann't influence PM/Sonia to give ministerial berth's to them. How can they influence PM/Sonia to make decisions to destroy their own party in AP.
The explanation you give regarding Rayapati etc influence in stopping telangana is more imaginatory than that of IM Sharma.
I am sure your (im)proper answers to my basic questions are an eye opener for people who believed the current agitation is genuine.
@Viswaroop (25 November 2011 17:33)
ReplyDelete1. Similarly there was no alternative for telangana opposers in 2009 assembly elections. The telangana seekers claim all parties were for telangana during 2009 assembly elections. So how can we say nobody were opposed to telangana during 2009 elections?
2. Why would Nehru object for merging of telangana with SeemaAndhra but not to the merger of marathi and kannada districts of Hyd state with Bombay and Mysore states? You have not answered my question instead of trying to evade by using 1st SRC recommendation. There is no yardstick at that time to say 8 district telangana can be a state but not 5 district marathi region of Hyd state.
Probably Nehru was against disintegration of Hyd state before he made up of his mind about the creation of states on the basis of language. After making up of his mind about the linguistic states, he was against delaying VisalaAndhra formation as recommended by 1st SRC. This was to avoid serious problems caused by such kind of recommendation in creation of states like Orissa.
In one of your comment (@Viswaroop, 25 November 2011 21:51) you say there was no voting for telangana merger with SA, which means there was no voting for the marathi and kannada districts of Hyd state merger with their parent states. Were they also forcefully merged with their parent states?
In next paragraph, you say the marathi and kannada districts had no authority to decide telangana fate. Does this mean some sort of voting taken place? Hyd state assembly decided the fate of marathi and kannada region just like that of telangana. You mean to say telangana region can decide the fate of marathi and kannada regions but they cann't decide telangana's fate.
3. What do you mean by marathi and kannada regions have no choice? If they were against their merger, they would have said no to breaking of Hyd state. The Marathi and Kannada regions probably would have agreed for disintegration of Hyd only after knowing that it will pave the way for creation of linguistic states. Otherwise, why would marathis, they were in a better position in Hyd state, would leave Hyd state and go to a new state?
Yes, the merger of telangana and SA taken place after the generation of gentlemen agreement, which was only a political agreement to satisfy some politicians from telangana that were against the merger for their selfish reasons.
Lets agree to disagree regarding the formation of AP because the reasons for the merger have been misinterpreted by politicians (and their supporters) for and against telangana by reading between lines just like the Parakala's letter in above post (Parakala Maatalu, Abaddala muutalu).
Telugu's separated from Madras state though they didn't get the capital whereas telangana wants to separate only with Hyd, which clearly indicates telangana intention for separation.
A1: No. Telangana seekers say except CPM all parties were for Telanagana in 2009 elections. You can check respective parties maifestos, their party leaders speeches etc. This is a fact and it is just 2 years old, not 50 years old. We cannot change facts for the sake of some dudes wanting state to be united. I really do not understand your question.
ReplyDeleteA2: It is not about what you or me think, there was a committee assigned for formation of states and committee suggested so. Where was the argument?
As I already explained to you there was no other option given to Kannada and Marathi districts but given for Telangana. It is in SRC, you can download and read SRC. We are talking about facts, not your feelings. Why do you make silly arguments?
A3: Why again same blobber? Do you have any point to make?
For the same reasons why Madras was given to tamils Hyderabad goes to Telangana. You didn't bring Hyderabad with you when merger happened, Now you cannot take it with you as it is not yours. It is as simple as that.
We are asking for telangana state that was given as an option in 1st SRC. It was with Hyderabad then and it is with Hyderabad now also.
No more silly questions please.
@Viswaroop
ReplyDelete1. Like telangana voters had no alternate to Congress to vote in 1957 elections, telangana opposers had no choice but to vote for the parties supporting telangana in 2009 elections, which doesn't mean that people in non-telagana region agreeing for bifurcation of AP.
2.You are right. what you or I think are immaterial and facts are important? AP created in 1956 and it is the fact. Who knows public opinion would have or wouldn't have crystallised for the merger if we had waited as suggested by the 1st SRC. But these are hypothetical views and we shouldn't give too much importance to them as you suggested. The 1st SRC recommendation made for the merger made 60 years ago. Public opinion changes very often and hence we have elections for every 5 years. So how can we use 1st SRC recommendation made for unification by taking public opinion 2 generations ago for the separation of current generation? Aslo if telangana seekers want separation based on 1st SRC, then why did they agree for the SKC and provided tons and tons of pages of information to it?
3. Chennai (Madras) was given to Tamilnadu because Telugus asked for separation. Bombay given to Maharashtra because Gujarathis asked for separation. So far no region has been separated with the existing capital. So if you want to use the same reason why Madras given to Tamilnadu, then you know who will get Hyderabad.
Discussed about 1st SRC option in point 2.
1) You had an option, CPM is always with united andhra slogan :). Jokes apart how does it matter? I don't understand your point at all. It does not matter even every andhraite wants state to be united though it is a fact that backward classes there are asking for separation. We protest for the U-turn of the party leaders who have changed their voice after Dec 2009.
ReplyDelete2) Hope you would give some concrete point at some point of time. The reason for asking for separate state is not 1st SRC, it is because whatever were the apprehensions of leaders at that time that led to gentlemen agreement have become reality later. There is descrimination on Telangana at every corner. Hope this would give you some picture. Now don't start again by asking what kind of descrimination etc. I don't have all the time in the world to dedicate all my time to an Anon like you.
3)You are wrong again. Chennai was given to Tamils because it is theirs, Mumbai was given to Marathis because it always belonged to Marathis. Both Marathis and Gujaratis have asked for separation, not just marathis. There were several attacks on Gujaratis by Marathis in Mumbai in those days.
Shillong was the capital of undivided Assam. Meghalaya people fought for separate state and after separation Meghalaya retained Shillong, not Assam as they are the rightful owners of the city. please learn some facts before making conclusions.
@Viswaroop
ReplyDelete1. If telangana seekers protest against U-turn of the party leaders who have changed their voice after Dec 2009, why did they agree for the SKC on 5th Jan 2010.
2. Please stick with one cause (under development or some thing else) with evidence for separation. Blaming others won't fetch a state.
3. Shillong population was 20K when Meghalaya separated from Assam and there are many bigger cities in Assam at that time. Hence loss of capital didn't affect Assam. Unlike Shillong, Hyd is 5 or 6th biggest city in India and there are no cities in SeemaAndhra bigger than Hyd. Loss of Hyd city in the name of bifurcation will greatly affect common public in SA and therefore the majority of SA public is for unitedAP. Please you also learn facts without giving too much regionalism to them.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteA1: Is there any meaning in your question? What is the link between agreeing for SKC and your leaders U-turn? Please ask questions that atleast make sense to you.
By the way if you check 2 years back records Telangana leaders always are with negative opinion about SKC and always said further committees are only delaying tactics. But when Union Govt forms a committee on the issue, it is our duty to give our argument to the committee. I hope next time onwards you will not question about what we did taht we are exactly supposed to do.
A2: Sorry to say but, an andhraite need not tell us about what our argument should be.
A3: Please check your previous questions trail. Shillong example was given when you said that region that asks for separation cannot get the capital. If you can't stick to your querstions and change argument without direction there is no use.
At this moment I advice you to recap all your own questions and check what all are answered before making counter questions in different directions.
That Hyderabad should be the capital city was a demand of the Telanganites themselves. Actually Burgula gave a statement that he would not have opted for Vishalandhra if it was suggested to him that Hyderabad would not be the capital. That was because there was a powerful group in Rayalaseema which wanted to continue Kurnool as the capital of Andhra Pradesh (Visalandhra) and was making that demand. In 1953 when Andhra State was formed all Telangana leaders hailed it and wanted immediate merger with Andhra with Hyderabad as the Capital. Leaders who would later in 1955-56 turn separatist also demanded immediate merger. So from 1953-55 all were integrationists in Telangana. Only when they saw the possibility due to Nehru's attitude and Fazal Ali Commission formation that the separate Telangana movement picked up. Even so two-thirds of the Hyderabad Assembly members rejected the Fazal Ali recommendation and wanted immediate merger. The division of opinion in Assembly discussions is recorded and there for every body to see. No resolution was passed but the division of opinion was apparent. In one sense no resolution was required even because earlier a resolution for trifurcation of Hyderabad State had been passed by Hyderabad Assembly in which linguistic state formation was also mentioned.
ReplyDeleteRegionalism raises its ugly head whenever there arises an opportunity of bagging exclusive power for vested interests and self-seeking leaders. That was what gave rise to the separate Telangana agitation in 1955-56. At that time all saner and sacrificing elements were for merger. Only the feudal clique and selfish interests led the separatist movement and misguided students and middle classes in urban areas. KALOJI was a staunch integrationist those days and he was even injured once in Warangal by stone pelting separatists. He wrote verses in support of Telugu unity and hailing formation of Andhra Pradesh.
Likewise but for the 9 December statement of Chidambaram, the present separatist movement would have no basis at all. I am hopeful that in the coming days it will again die down since saner elements are rethinking now.
@I.M.Sharma
ReplyDelete1) Refrain from using word "separatists". I hope you are aware that seeking a separate state cannot be separatism. This is not your VMS blog to use such ugly talk.
2) In your previous comment you said Hyderabad assembly passed a bill in favor of merger and now you came down to opinion expressed. if there is no resolution how do you know two third was in favor of merger? We still have people who were there in Hyderabad assembly at that time alive, so do not say lies with authenticity.
3) as I already stated Hyderabad assembly with members from kannada and marathi regions have no authority to decide on telangana fate, that is the very reason Fazal Ali recommending to wait till next election. So I guess in future you would stop talking about the opinions in Hyderabad assembly.
4) Vested interest of self seeking leaders was the reason for the then separate andhra agitation, current samaikyandhra agitation. Please note the difference between Telangana movement and samiakyandhra movement. When samaikyandhra movement was run by some political leaders for their selfish interests telangana movement is with people.
5) Though what you say that during 1953-56 everyone in telangana asked for merger with Hyderabad is a big lie, I can agree that there could be some leaders and some people in favor of Visalandhra, mainly communists as they trusted you. But now after experiencing the ugly phase of united andhra pradesh for 50 years everyone is against it. Please note taht CPI, the very owners of Visalandhra slogun from whom you stole are now asking for separate telangana.
6) before moving forward letus recap about what you discussed:
- You lied about Hyderabad resolution in favor of merger and it is proved.
- your imagination about nehruvian ploy against merger is proved wrong by showing taht parliament is the final authority.
- your statement that telangana agitation is because of vested interest of self seeking leaders is debunked. Infact VMS itself is run by political unemployee struggling for media attention.
- your usage of word "separatists" is warned.
ఇన్ని రోజులూ మీ బ్లాగ్ చూడకపోవడం వల్ల ఈ టపా చదవలేదు. ఈ కార్టొన్ చూడండి: https://plus.google.com/111113261980146074416/posts/F3kM6jsWsQw
ReplyDeleteA Joker politician carried India flag few months back and started preaching Unity of India and cried that India will be disintegrated into pieces if Telangana state is formed is nowhere to be seen or heard when Mayawati sent assembly resolution for division of UP.Is UP not India? Why are these so called ' Integrationists' not opposing ?
ReplyDelete