మంచి రోజులు మనకూ వస్తాయి.

ఏప్రిల్ 10, 2010

what i have submitted to sri krishna comittee

To the honourable justice sri krishna committee, New Delhi

respected sir,
iam ramakanth reddy kankanala , a medical graduate from hyderabad , india.
I here by submit to you my report on the telangaana issue .

To begin with , i hail from telangaana region of the present state called andhra pradesh . Iam from nalgonda dist to be specific. But i stay in hyderabad.
I want to give you my account of

WHAT IS TELANGAANA ? WHAT CONSTITUTES TELANGAANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH?

HISTORY OF TELANGAANA TILL PRESENT

MY IMAGINATION IF TELANGAANA STATE IS REALITY

METHOD TO SOLVE THIS —– FEW SUGGESTIONS ………………..

WHAT IS TELANGAANA ? WHAT CONSTITUTES TELANGAANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH?

Literal meaning of Telangaana is telungu/ telugu = aaNiyamu/aaNyamu/aaNemu , meaning telugu country , aaNiyamu for country . The present day telangaana is only a part of the so called TRUE TELANGAANA . The word andhra is the same equivalent in SANSKRIT. Andhra desa meaning andhra country which existed during the times of mahabharata .
In history there is no such place called saperate andhra and saperate telangaana. Both mean the same in teo different languages of INDIA , the SANSKRIT & DRAVIDIAN .

The language spoken by Telangaana is a dravidian derivative ,but variably sanskritised language named TELUGU.

Even when the Mohammadans and turks ,persians and europeans came to INDIA, they used the term TELANGAANA to represent the telugu speaking country as a whole even though the regions of telugu speaking people were ruled by different rulers like
the nizam ( earlier whole of telangaana karnataka madras presidency and parts of kerala )
parts under dutch , french
and parts under the english .

The term andhra is a relatively newer term in use for denoting the telugu speaking lands when they were under the state of MADRAS and later when they saperated from it.
Ofcourse after formation of the new state its name was changed to andhra pradesh.

The telangaana actually contains the telugu speaking areas from the upper and middle peninsula of the indian subcontinent.

Its borders roughly are….
north – uup to the areas of dense jungles of DANDAKAARUNYA or the jungles of gondwana above godavari river, and adjoining parts up to nagpur of maharashtra westward and eastward till the cuttack and ganjam districts of orissa.
South ward till areas up to tanjavur chengalpat district and chennai eastwardly and and up to mysore region west wardly .
East wardly the coast of coramandel from paradip ,puri to pondicherry .
West wardly it extends up to the gulbarga bidar raichur in north to bangalore ,hubli bellary hospet hampi regions of karnataka.
Although there are regions overseas where telugu speaking people reside but were always downlooked , like in MALAYSIA , FIJI, MAURITIUS, SINGAPORE, SRILANKA , SOME PARTS OF CARRIBEAN, PARTS OF AFRICA , SOUTH AFRICA etc.

the present day andhra pradesh more or less the same areas excluding some places.

The TELANGAANA WHICH WAS ONCE A BIG COUNTRY WITH ALL THE REGIONS WAS GRADUALLY CUT DOWN TO PIECES IN THE FORM OF ACCEEDING THE CIRCARS AND CEDED DISTRICTS TO THE BRITISH , AND WHAT IS LEFT IS LEFT OUR PORTION OF TELANGAANA , WHICH IS CALLED PRESENTLY THE TELANGAANA.

I ve given few book citations for this statement.

The famous western reasearcher of telugu and indic languages , Mr. C.P.Brown says this way…

Essays On The Language And The Literature Of The Telugus
 By C. P. Brown

1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc

Pre- and protohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 B.C.
 By M. L. K. Murty, Dravidian University

The Madras journal of literature and science, Volume 7
 By Madras Literary Society and Auxiliary of the Royal Asiatic Society

This i can say in confidance because of the following excerpts which i have found in the

Geneaolgies of the Hindus: extracted from their sacred writings; with an …
 By Francis Hamilton

Useful tables, forming an appendix to the Journal of the Asiatic Society …
 By James Prinsep

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 6, Part 1

The Madras journal of literature and science, Volume 7
 By Madras Literary Society and Auxiliary of the Royal Asiatic Society

History and Historians in Ancient India
 By D.K. Ganguly

Students’ Britannica India, Volumes 1-5
 By Britannica, Dale Hoiberg, Indu Ramchandani

Pre- and protohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 B.C.
 By M. L. K. Murty, Dravidian University

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 3
 By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland

Historical fragments of the Mogul empire. Of the Morattoes, and of the …
 By Robert Orme

Ancient India: From the Earliest Times to the First Century AD
 By E.J. Rapson

A general collection of the best and most interesting voyages and travels in …
 By John Pinkerton

Tracts, historical and statistical, on India: with journals of several tours …
 By Benjamin Heyne

A new and comprehensive gazetteer, Volume 3
 By George Newenham Wright

Oriental historical manuscripts in the Tamil language, Volume 2
 By William Taylor

The history of India: the Hindú and Mahometan periods

The nizam, his history and relations with the British government
 By Henry George Briggs

India; or, Facts to illustrate the character and condition of the …, Volume 1
 By Robert Rickards

Essays on Indian antiquities, historic, numismatic, and …, Volume 2
 By James Prinsep, Edward Thomas, Henry Thoby Prinsep

Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind: History of the Asiatic …
 By James Cowles Prichard

the sessional papers

A descriptive and historical account of the Godavery District in the …
 By Henry Morris

The history of India: from the earliest period to the close of …, Volume 1

Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful …, Volumes 11-12

Researches into the origin and affinity of the principal languages of Asia …
 By Vans Kennedy

HISTORY OF TELANGAANA TILL PRESENT INCLUDING PRESENT AND PAST MOVEMENTS

The earlier name was andhraka or andhra or andhra desa which was named after king andhraka from the historical times . This existed during the period of mahabharatha.

The earlier ruled kings of this region were satavaahanas after the reign of vikramaarkaa .
They ruled from deccan , parts of eastern maharashtra and northern andhra pradesh.
They ruled from kotilingaala of medak karimnagar districts .

After wards rajputs called badami chalukyas ruled this area of andhra pradesh . In the coastal region the region was ruled by telugu cholas and in south wards ruled by the tamil cholas etc.

after the badaami chalukyas , the golden period of telugu history began with the arrival of the kakatiyas .they ruled from warangal . During the reign of ganapati deva , all the telugu speaking lands were united under his throne . The language flourished during the kakatiyas .
After the fall of pratapa rudra by the tughlaq prince , ullugh khan , the country was thrown in to chaos and anarchy . The tughlaq prince over ran whole of south india and the country was ruled by petty kings and cheiftains and samantha raajas.

After the fall of tughlaqs the northern dravidian region ie, the regions of karnataka and AP were ruled by the nobles appointed by the tughlaqs earlier who declared themselves the rulers. The bahamanis , kondaveeti reddy kings , velama kings and other kings ruled the region. later they fell and the region was under the turkish men called qutub shahis .
There was vijayanagara empire at humpi which became strong in the south . This was golden period of telugu and perhaps kannada literature too.

After fall of qutub shahis and vijayanagara kingdoms , the region went under the mughals through the local residents , the subedar of the deccan . He used to rule the whole of the peninsula , later with after fall of mughals , nizam declared independence and ruled from hyderabad .
With the coming of french and british , the nizam weakened and gave away regions regularly to them to keep his throne intact.

This way the northern circars were given to british and later too ceded few districts to the british.

He was the only king though nominal , had his own administration , taxation , law and army and his own currency.

Under his rule the present so called telangaana districts (9 of them) along with kannada marati speaking districs suffered a lot both socially, culturally etc.while the british ruled regions were comaparitively more previliged , didint suffer much oppression though they were under foreign rule .

i give few excerpts of how the conditions then prevailed

RELIGIOUS RESTRICTIONS BACK THEN

Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724-1948 By P. V. Kate

AN EYE WITNESS THEN

The Oriental herald and colonial review [ed. by J.S. Buckingham].
 edited by James Silk Buckingham

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZKsEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Hyderabad+State&as_brr=1&cd=9#v=snippet&q=Hyderabad%20&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5AEbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Hyderabad+State&as_brr=1&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20State&f=false

Economic history of Hyderabad State: Warangal Suba, 1911-1950
 By V. Ramakrishna Reddy
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=f0mh6W7ejL4C&pg=PA65&dq=first+general+elections+held+in+Hyderabad+State+in+1952&as_brr=3&cd=5#v=onepage&q=first%20general%20elections%20held%20in%20Hyderabad%20State%20in%201952&f=false

HISTORICAL SKETCH

India, an historical sketch
 By Geo Trevor
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=f3ABAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR6&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=133#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20State&f=false

Modern Hyderabad (Deccan)
http://www.archive.org/stream/modernhyderabadd00lawj/modernhyderabadd00lawj_djvu.txt

Hyderabad State
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zXBB1nZYoLIC&pg=PA160&dq=nilagiri+nalgonda&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
Calcutta monthly journal and general register …
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=yBUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA256&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=235#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20%20&f=false

A geographical, statistical, and historical description of Hindostan and the …
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=YVIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA141&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=79#v=snippet&q=Hyderabad%20&f=false

Ramaseeana: or, A vocabulary of the peculiar language used by the thugs
 By Sir William Henry Sleeman
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=d3YPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA95&dq=telingana&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=46#v=snippet&q=hyderabad&f=false

Our faithful ally, the Nizam: being an historical sketch of events, showing …
 By Hastings Fraser
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=58IBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA347&dq=Nizam%27s+telingana+districts&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=58IBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA347&dq=Nizam%27s+telingana+districts&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

A collection of treaties, engagements, and sunnuds, relating to …, Volume 5
 By India. Foreign and Political Dept
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XQEMAAAAYAAJ&dq=Sunnuds&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=sP3Z7kNXud&sig=mpjuDkpXKNM4HHDqqZg0rAnglQA&hl=en&ei=c4dJS8S_LIri7AOM_cjXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Nizam-British relations, 1724-1857
 By Sarojini Regani
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9Fb26pWqhScC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=nizam%27s+firman&source=bl&ots=9T5SWegaSF&sig=bVRZZ6yNPJ7q3UmPoY-YJp9dicg&hl=en&ei=wotJS4elE4Hg7AO8ybDXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=nizam%27s%20firman&f=false

The Indian princes and their states, Volume 3
 By Barbara N. Ramusack
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ohnfWmSgFkAC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Communalism+and+Indian+princely+states+:+Travancore,+Baroda+and+Hyderabad+in+the+1930s+/+Dick+Kooiman&source=bl&ots=TSuajxJM1z&sig=0CRhhex3-ANYIhvErwi32BhiH6U&hl=en&ei=N7xJS_axBo7g7APg-YDYCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=Communalism%20and%20Indian%20princely%20states%20%3A%20Travancore%2C%20Baroda%20and%20Hyderabad%20in%20the%201930s%20%2F%20Dick%20Kooiman&f=false
India’s princely states: people, princes and colonialism
 By Waltraud Ernst, Biswamoy Pati
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=B_wvm3W018wC&pg=PT27&lpg=PT27&dq=Communalism+and+Indian+princely+states+:+Travancore,+Baroda+and+Hyderabad+in+the+1930s+/+Dick+Kooiman&source=bl&ots=twfExhzH-w&sig=5FvdPEl2-56oCbdOCDvLBifyw9c&hl=en&ei=hLpJS-TOIILs7AOE2qDXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Communalism%20and%20Indian%20princely%20states%20%3A%20Travancore%2C%20Baroda%20and%20Hyderabad%20in%20the%201930s%20%2F%20Dick%20Kooiman&f=false

Sketch of the political history of India from the introduction of Mr. Pitt’s …
 By Sir John Malcolm
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QlfRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA284&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=105#v=snippet&q=Hyderabad%20%20&f=false

The Kaleidoscope: or, Literary and scientific mirror, Volume 4
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=pjEFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA283&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=92#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20&f=false

Catalogue of additions to the manuscripts in the British Museum in the years …
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=EQAVAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA74&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=172#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20%20&f=false

Thirty years in India: or, A soldier’s reminiscences of native and …, Volume 2
 By Henry Bevan
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CBy2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=156#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20%20&f=false

Historical sketches of the south of India, in an attempt to trace the …
 By Mark Wilks
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dLURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA325&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=149#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20%20&f=false

Provincial series: Hyderabaad State (1909)
http://www.archive.org/details/provincialseries00mirzuoft

Historical sketches of the south of India, in an attempt to trace the …
 By Mark Wilks
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dLURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA325&dq=Hyderabad+%28India+:+State%29&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=98#v=onepage&q=Hyderabad%20%28India%20%3A%20State%29&f=false

The political history of India, from 1784 to 1823, Volume 1
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=w1wIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR97&dq=Hyderabad+State&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=19#v=snippet&q=Hyderabad%20&f=false

The India list and India Office list
 By Great Britain. India Office
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3VQTAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA573&dq=Hyderabad+State&as_brr=1&cd=8#v=snippet&q=Hyderabad%20%20&f=false

vidyanidhi archiving and accessing of doctoral theses ( mysore university articles )

conditions in telangana and role of communists
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/1249/4/319-2003-UOH-3.pdf
the reole of press
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/1249/7/319-2003-UOH-6.pdf
social and political trends
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/1245/4/317-1997-UOH-3.pdf
the rise of razakars
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/1249/5/319-2003-UOH-4.pdf
communist rebellion
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/5628/7/JNU-1991-086-6.pdf

Telangana
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/simple-search?query=Telangana

Decline of a Patrimonial Regime: The Telengana Rebellion in India, 1946-51
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15377979/Decline-of-a-Patrimonial-Regime-The-Telengana-Rebellion-in-India-194651?autodown=txt
http://en.eyeplorer.com/show/me/Telangana+Rebellion

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4405836

CONT…….

Its well known that after the POLICE ACTION the region of hyderabad state was officially liberated from the crutches of tyranny.

Thus entering a new world of freedom though the both of them lived under different rulers.

Here were some differences between the people of the both regions.
The telangaana ( which was now only of 9 districts , because of giving away of the northern circar districts and ceded few districts later of the EARLIER TELANGAANA to british.) region was under the feudal lords and jagirdars and were severely oppressed, didnt enjoy much freedom, education , the liberty of practicing their religion ,culture etc.

incontrast to this the region under the british enjoyed much freedom and liberality . No restrictions of relgion , culturally or education wise , though they were subordinate to the british. Land reforms social reforms gained momentum with the encouragement of british . Few irrigation projects constructed and agriculture was stabilized . Where as in nizams regions there were no socio- culutural reforms, the people lived as downrated citizens and were always under pressure from the government. Religious discrimination prevailed. Education was only to nobles and later for everyone , but much later when compared to the british regions . Taxation was high . Urdu was imposed as state language and people forced to study only in urdu.
Religious conversions were encouraged . Such were the severity of the conditions.
Under this rule the concept of communism struck chord and so the independence struggle was led by the communist party where as in rest of india it was the indian national congress.

After india achieved its independence , nizam started and encouraged the razakars under then MIM party ( not the present one ) , and this led to loot killings riots arson rape murders of many people in the telangaana region especially. The telugus revolted fittingly through the communist and andhra manha sabha party , which ultimately led to the POLICE ACTION.

After independence, there was struggle for saperate andhraa or telugu speaking state from the madras state. Also the communists and andhra maha sabha leaders were willing for it for the unification of the vishalaandhra for common good.
During this time the communists were main opposition to the INC . Nehru initially didnt agree and later did so after potti sreeramulu s death .
1st SRC was imposed and the fazal ali commision gave its opinions that there are so and so problems and so and so are the solutions .
To say the truth i didnt see any one single suggestions in that , he gave pros and cons , and what to do for the best results.
Then there were some yes and no s from hyderabad state and finally the assembly of hyderabad state voted for merging into vishalaandhra.
There was gentle mans agreement and so on for the common good . There were 6 point formulae and so on. All this was in the interest of good for both .

This went on . But after independence the mood of the people and leaders and parties changed . Everyone fought for themselves and overran the rules and guidelines , not only in this point but in every matter of public interest.

There were many people migrating to the 9 districts of telangaana for finding a better life there . Up till here there was no problem but then there became lot of corruption by pumping in officers from non local region to the telangaana districts as here there were very few qualified for the job posts , as earlier they were under nizams rule . In this way the corruption went on and on until there was widespread dissentment amongst the local people . This was understandable , and was clearly a consequence of the corruption. And not the region solely.

After few years there were dharnas and movements regarding this and some politicians who were wicked enough got the situation in to their hands . They made total benefit out of it by the expense of many innocent lives , just as fanatic politicians of present day.

After few years there was some agreements ( mostly for themselves privately) and the scene calmed down but this time the tempers flared up at andhra region ( british ruled areas) by some wicked politicians it self.

Later this thing cooled and there were some promises to papers only and dthe corruption went on as usual both at top brass and lower levels of all the regions of AP. This went on and on. Meanwhile the education had improved almost in all the districts of AP, middle class rose . This time also again to reap benefit out of the issue , TRS party rose up by some leaders who spoke entirely oppositely earlier.

This enjoyed some sopport only and the situation came in 2004 for congress party to fight the elections with TDP by joining hands with TRS .

TRS leaders and other parties leaders had said illogical and what ever comments on either sides of the regions.
Afterwards every thing is known to every one , i suppose.

I give few excerpts here.

THE POWER GAMES AND REGIONAL MOVEMENTS

the movement of 1969 telangaana is well known .just for recollections i give you few articles here.

Detailed account of the “Jai Telangana Movement of 1969″…..researched and arranged event wise
http://www.myteluguroots.com/chapter_17.html

The Demand for a Separate Telengana State in India, by Hugh Gray © 1971 University of California Press.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2642982?cookieSet=1

The integration of the princely state of Hyderabad and the making of the postcolonial state in India, 1948–56
Taylor C. Sherman
http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/44/4/489.pdf

INDIAN UNREST
By
VALENTINE CHIROL

http://wiki.phalkefactory.net/images/8/8d/Indian_Unrest.pdf

History of Indian Literature: 1911-1956, struggle for freedom : triumph and …
 By Sisir Kumar Das

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sqBjpV9OzcsC&pg=PA597&dq=golconda+patrika&as_brr=3&cd=5#v=onepage&q=nilagiri&f=false

FEW OTHER ARTICLES …………

http://www.telangana.org/Papers.asp

http://ridingtheelephant.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/hyderabad-sinks-from-software-to-scams-as-greed-and-wealth-swamp-politics/

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1712/17120730.htm

http://narendralutherarchives.blogspot.com/

http://news.loksatta.org/2009/12/nineteenth-century-politics-over.html

Regionalism
http://countrystudies.us/india/75.htm

The politicians ideas of this movement and their likely motives

the present agitation of telangaana from all the above things and the present scenario in the state appears to be for their personal motives than that for the good of the state.

An article from newyork times says this way…………

once the 1969 bloody movement has put some dark marks on the hearts of people of either regions , i feel that similar kind of thing should not happen now. So thats why i submit this letter to you.

MY IMAGINATION IF TELANGAANA STATE IS REALITY

if telangaana were to be saperated , the fate of the settlers who have come here would be in doubt.
There would not be any problem as such immediately like riots etc but the bad temper which is created by the politicians will become true( i mean that what the politicians here saying that andhra seema people all are cheats , rougues etc) . This will be generalized to all for the actions of few crooked ones.

Moreover false pride develops in the people of this region over others . This may lead to discrimination openly in various fields like untouchability.
In such case there will be even more hatred developing with in the minds of people and this may lead to rioting etc just as we see communal clashes now.

There might even be back lash in the opposite region of andhra where the telangana people be similarly treated. More over there is very chance of politicians raising riots immediately after the STATE OF TELANGAANA IS GIVEN .

MOREOVER THIS IF UNTREATED AS THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE PAST HAD DONE MANY TIMES FROM INDEPENDENCE, THEN THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE CONTINUALLY PESTER THE MINDS OF PEOPLE AND POLITICIANS ARE SURE TO USE THIS FOR THEIR CRIMINAL AND SELFISH NEEDS.

SO SOLVING THIS IS VERY MUCH IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY.

METHOD TO SOLVE THIS —– FEW SUGGESTIONS ………………..

SINCE THIS PROBLEM AROSE FROM POLITICIANS THIS SHOULD END WITH THEM . I WILL TELL A WAY TO DO THIS .

THE BASIS OF THE PROBLEM IS INEQUAL DEVELOPMENT AND UNDER DEVELOPMENT COMBINED WITH CORRUPTION AND NON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PACTS AND TREATIES.
THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT , THE PROBLEM OF UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND INEQUAL DEVELOPMENT AND CORRUPTION AROSE FROM POLITICIANS AND THEY THEMSELVES ROSE THE ISSUE OF SAPERATISM BASED ON THE FORMER MENTIONED PROBLEMS. IT IS SIMILAR TO TWO THEIVES BLAMING EACH OTHER FOR SOME THING , WHEN THE THEIVES THEMSELVES ARE THE THEIVES………..

SO….

TAKE OUT ALL THE ISSUES WHAT THEY RAISE AS THEIR DEMANDS AND FIND OUT WHATS THE FAULT ,

IT WOULD BE CERTAINLY THAT THE STATE GOV. LEADERS OF VARIOUS TIMES WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGLECTING THE AREA AND AT THE SAME TIME THE LOCAL AND THE AREA LEADERS WHO WERE RECKLESS ABOUT THIS ISSUES AND MORE OVER SUPERIMPOSED WITH CORRUPTION AT ALL THE STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION.
THIS SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE REPORT AS I FEEL THAT THIS THING SHOULD BE KNOWN TO THE COMMON PEOPLE OF THE REGION AND ALL INDIA ALSO FOR FUTURE REFERENCES.

ONE MORE THING IS JOBS ……..THE JOBS ISSUE HAD BEEN IN THE CENTRE FOR LONG AS THE LEADERS EITHER WHOLE STATE OR REGIONAL WERE MORE INTERESTED TO TAKE BRIBES AND GIVE POSTINGS RATHER THAN HELPING THE RECRUITMENT TO TAKE PLACE ON ITS OWN.
MORE OVER THE OFFICIALS TOO WENT ILLEGAL MANNER FAVOURING THEIR KNOWN ONES ETC.THESE CORRUPT OFFICIALS EVEN WENT TO BRIBE THE LEADERS AND SO ON , AS THE LEADERS ALSO WERE OF THE SAME MOOD RATHER THAN DEVELOPING THE REGIONS .

LASTLY THE RIVER WATER SHARING DISPUTES .

HERE ALSO THE LEADERS ARE TO BE BLAMED AS IT IS THEY WHO SHOULD RAISE THIS ISSUES IN THE LAW MANKING BODIES AND SEE THAT THEY ARE COMPLETED WITH IN STIPULATED TIME .
BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE ….THE REASON ……ONCE AGAIN THE STATE LEADERS AS WELL AS LOCAL LEADERS WHO WERE BUSY WITH SOME OTHER THINGS THAN THAT OF THE ISSUE OF THE COMMUNITY. STATE LEADERS WERE RECKLESS AND LOCAL LEADERS NOT BOTHERED AT ALL ON THE ISSUES.

MORE OVER , THE ALLEGATION THAT ANDHRA LEADERS WERE MORE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THEIR OWN REGIONS BY HELPING CONSTRUCT DAMS FOR THE FAVOUR OF THEIR OWN REGION IS BASELESS AS THE THEIF IS INTERESTED IN STEALING THAN FROM WHO THE PERSON IS…….HERE I FEEL DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS THE ANDHRA REGION WENT LUCKY IN receiving THE WATER WHEN COMPARED TO THE TELANGAANA REGION.

MAIN THING IS LEFT AND RIGHT CANAL ISSUE .

MAJOR ONE IS THE MAL CALCULATIONS OF THE RIVER WATERS AVAILABLE BY BACHVAT TRIBUNAL , I GIVE FEW ARTICLES ABOUT THIS……..

Sustainable Development of Water Resources: Performance Appraisal of Dams By V P Jauhari

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=qYpZcuqMsOgC&pg=PA24&dq=Lower+Krishna+Project+Nandikonda+site+of+the+erstwhile+Hyderabad.+State&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Flood frequency on the Krishna River, India

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:HNWAmp5ytVcJ:iahs.info/redbooks/a084/084053.pdf+Nagarjuna+Sagar+dam+Lt.+canal&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

MAPPING OF SALT-AFFECTED AND WATERLOGGED AREAS IN PART OF NAGARJUNA SAGAR PROJECT (NSP), PRAKASAMDISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH (ANGRAU/ NRSA)

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:uK03gPSEkiwJ:www2.alterra.wur.nl/Internet/webdocs/ilri-publicaties/project_reports/India_IDNP/Prep2/prep2-h4.pdf+Nagarjuna+Sagar+dam+Lt.+canal&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

INDIRA SAGAR (POLAVARAM) PROJECT

http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/indirasagar.htm

nagarjunasagar telangana dispute

http://books.google.com/books?id=24VkH5cdFIUC&pg=PA35&dq=nagarjunasagar+telangana+dispute&hl=en&ei=DfC-S_CWDIW7rAe2nIj_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Committees and Commissions in India, 1947-73: 1971-73 By Virendra Kumar
http://books.google.com/books?id=mISVwxcF5asC&pg=PA184&dq=nagarjunasagar+dispute&hl=en&ei=m-q-S4f8AcywrAeVit21CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nagarjunasagar%20dispute&f=false

Mismatch between Supplies and Demands of Canal Water in a Major Distributary Command Area of the Nagarjunasagar Left Canal
http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:joae&volume=43&issue=3&article=010

KRISHNA WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

http://www.irrigation.ap.gov.in/volume2.pdf

AND MORE OVER OVER THE SPAN OF 60 YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DAMS CONSTRUCTED ON THE UPPER KRISHNA RIVER . SO DECREASING THE FLOW TO DOWN STREAM .

ONE MORE THING I FEEL IS THE DESIGN OF THE LEFT CANAL OF NAGARJUNA SAGAR . I FEEL THIS HAD BEEN A FAILURE IN THE DESIGN OF THE CANAL AS A RESULT , THE CANAL IS NOT receiving ENOUGH WATERS AS ESTIMATED.

ONCE AGAIN THIS HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED BY FEW EMINENT CIVIL ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS , IF POSSIBLE FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AS THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE THIRD PERSONS IN THIS ISSUE AND THE REVIEW WILL GO MORE PROFESSIONALLY.

THE REPORTS THEN BE MADE PUBLIC AND ALSO BE CHALLANGED BY ANY ONE WHO QUESTION THE REVIEWS.
THEN TAKE A FINAL CORRECT DESIGN FOR THE REPAIR AND SOLVING THIS CANAL PROBLEMS.

GODAVARI WATERS SIMILARLY BE INVESTIGATED AND GOOD ACTION BE TAKEN.

NOW ALSO PLAN A NEW SET OF RULES AND REGULATIONS BE PROPOSED BY EMINENT ONES AND THIS TIME THE SET OF TERMS BE PRACTICABLE . AND QUESTIONABLE AND TRANSPARENT.

AND FINALLY ALSO THE CITIZENS OF BOTH THE REGIONS AND AS WELL AS WHOLE INDIA BE WARNED IN MINDING THE WHOM SO EVER STATEMENTS AND GIVE ATTENTION TO THE ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC CONCERN AND BEHAVE MORALLY AND SENSIBLY , AS IT IS THEY WHO ARE GOING TO ENJOY THE FRUITS OF GOOD OR BAD OF GOVERNMENTS ACTIONS.
ALSO WARN THEM IN ELECTING GOOD PEOPLE TO LEGISLATIVE BODIES FREE OF ANY BIAS ……………………………………………..

sir, here i finsh my report .
I am sorry if iam harsh in using my statements anywhere in the report as this is my feeling towards this issue.

I HOPE THAT JUSTICE SRIKRISHNA COMMITTEE WILL UP TO THE EXPECTATIONS COMMON PEOPLE AND GIVE A STUNNING AND TRUE , UNBIASSED REPORT ON THIS ISSUE WHICH LEAD TO THE SOLVING OF THIS PROBLEM AND IN FUTURE MAY STAND AS REFERENCE FOR ANY SIMILAR CASE LIKE THIS .

JAI HIND ……………

RAMAKANTH REDDY K

మార్చి 3, 2010

మన తెలంగానాంధ్ర లొల్లి హాలీవుడ్ ని కుడా తాకినట్టుంది…….ఇక్కడ చూడండి

మన వాళ్ళ లొల్లి కాస్త ఎక్కువైనట్టుంది ,మారీ ఈ మధ్య హాలీవుడ్ లోను ఇదే కాకిగోల .

మన వాళ్ళు అంటే మాములు వాళ్ళు కాదులే , ‘మన’ నాయకులు అదే ఇంకెవరు ”కెసిఆర్” మరియు ”లగడపాటి” లు ఇద్దరు .

చెప్పడమెందుకు గాని చూసి నవ్వుకోండి ……..

చూసి నవ్వుకునే టట్టు ఉండే ఈ వీడియోలు చేసిన వాళ్ళ ”సృజనాత్మకతను” మెచ్చు కోలేకుండా ఉన్నాను.

ఈ కాసింత creativity మన సినిమా వాళ్లకు ఉంటె ఎంతో బాగుందనిపిస్తుంది…..అదే అవే పాత కథలు పాత డైలాగ్ లు , పిచ్చి జోకులు చూడలేకుండా ఉన్నాము .
వీళ్ళు మన ప్రస్తుత సిని industry కి చాలా అవసరం.

అటులనే వీటి కింద ఇంకొక రెండు వీడియో లు ఉన్నాయి . ఇవి ఒక channel లో వచ్చినవి . youtube లో చూశాను . మీరు కూడా నవ్వుకుంటారని ఇక్కడ ఉంచుతున్నాను.

ఎంజాయ్ ……………

**********ఇది ప్రాంతాలను ఉద్దేశించినది కాదు ……ఇది మన నాయకులను చూసి కాసేపు నవ్వుకుందామని అందరితో పంచుకుంటున్నాను అంతే …………………………….

రమాకాంతుడు

HERE IT IS LAGADAPAATI ……..IN & AS HITLER’S ……….SAMAIKYANDHRA ….

HERE IT IS KCR IN & AS HITLER’S ……………..TELANGANA………

HERE KCR IS SINGING AND DANCING FOR ……………… TELANGANA………..JAI HIND TV..

ENJOY……….

ఫిబ్రవరి 6, 2010

జ్ఞానులకు మరియు తెలంగాణ ఆంధ్రా సీమ ఉద్యమోన్మాదులందరికీ ఒక విజ్ఞప్తి

నా జవాబు : తెలంగాణ ఆంధ్రా సీమ వాళ్ళందరికీ

జ్ఞానులయిన తోటి BLOGGER లకు వందనం

నేను ఇప్పటివరకు ఒకరికి ఇచ్చిన అసలు-సిసలు తెలుగు జవాబు ఇది.

ఈ విషయం అందరికీ వర్తిస్తదని తలచి నేను దీనిని ఒక వ్యాసంగా POST చేస్తున్నను.

” నేను తెలుగులో ఇంత పెద్దగా ఎప్పుడూ రాయలేదు.

మీకు బదులు చెప్పలనే కోరిక తోనే వ్రాస్తున్నను.

అయ్యా సుబ్బయ్య వారు,

మీ నుంచి ఇటువంటి పొస్త్ వస్తుందని నేను ఊహించలేదు. మీకు గుర్తుందో లేదో ,మీరు నాకు తెలంగాణము కు అర్థము తెలిపినారు , సంతోషం అందుకు నా కృతజ్ఞతలు. మీ భాషా జ్ఞాణానికి నా వందనము.

మీ నుండి కూడా ఇటువంటి మాటలు వస్తాయని అనుకోలేదు.
అదే తాగుట గూర్చి …..

మనలో మంచి చెడు రెండూ ఉంటాయి. కాని వాటి గూర్చి మీరు అట్లా అనడం ఏమీ బాగా లేదు. మీ ఆవేదనను అర్థం చేసుకోగలను, మీ ఉద్దేశాలు తెలుసు , తెలుగు వారు విడిపోవద్దని మీరు కోరుకుంటున్న ఉద్దేశ్యము గొప్పది.
మీ ప్రాంతO మీద కొందరు తెలంగాణ పేరు తో రాజకీయ ఆట లో భాగంగా ఆంధ్రా వాళ్ళు దొంగలు మోసగాళ్ళు అని నొటికి ఏది వస్తే ఆ పిచ్చి కూతలు కూస్తున్నారు. వాటికి బాధ పడి దానికి వ్యతిరేకంగానే ఆ మాటలు మాట్లాడారాని నాకు తెలుసు.
కాదనను మిమ్మలిని ఉసిగొలిపిన కూతలు చాల నీచమయినవి, ఆత్మాభిమానాన్ని గాయ పరిచే విధము గా ఉన్నయి.

కాని మీరు తెలివి కలిగిన వారు. ఆ పిచ్చి కూతలు చేసిన వాడి సంస్కారం కాని వాని ఉద్దేశ్యలు వాని కుత్సిత బుద్ధి ఏమితో మనకు తెలియకుండా ఉOడదు. వాడు తన లాభం కోసం ఇంకొకరిని బలి చేస్తున్నడు. వాడి చెడు మాటలు మనకు కూడా చెడు రీతిలో ఆలొచింప చేస్తుంది , అది మిమ్మల్ని కూడా ఈ నిగ్రహం కోల్పోయేలా చేసే స్థయిలో ఉంది.

ఇప్పటికే చదువుకున్న వాళ్ళు కూడా ఆలోచనా విచక్షణ ను కోల్పోయి ఇష్టం వచ్చిన రీతి లో మూర్ఖత్వాన్ని చూపించుకుంటున్నారు.

మీరు కూడా అట్లా మాట్లాడుతారని ఊహించలేదు.

చెప్పాలి కాబట్టి చెబుతున్నా నిజమే ఇక్కడ తాగుతారు. ఇంట్లొనే తాగుతారు. కాని అన్ని సార్లు తప్పని నేను అనుకోను ఎందుకంటే ( మా జిల్లా నల్లగొండ లో ఆ త్రాగునీటికి తాడికల్లు తాగక తప్పదని అంటారు .( నల్లగొండ లో ఎండలు చాల ఎక్కువ, మరియు నీళ్ళు పలుచనివి కాదు , ఉప్పు/మందపు నీళ్ళు.వీతికి విరుగుడు గా కల్లు తీసుకుంటారని అనగా విన్నాను.) మా నయనమ్మ అమ్మమ్మ కూడా కల్లు తాగేవారు. నేను మా అమ్మ ఇంకా కొంత మంది తాగము లెండి. కాని OVER ALL ఇక్కడ తాగుతారు. నేను ఒప్పుకుంటా. కాని అందరు కాదు.

ఇది అందరికి వర్తించదు. ఇక్కడిది తాగుతారు, ఇది CULTURE లో భగమే కాని తాగుబోతు CULTURE కాదు. ఇట్లా అందరికి వర్తించే టట్టు అనటం బాధిస్తది.

తాగటం ఎవరు చేయరు. మన రాజులు తాగక పోయెద ,మన కథలలో లేవా కని…..
అట్లాగే లంజతనం కుడానూ. కోస్తా లో RECORDING DANCE లలో ఆడవాళ్ళను బట్టలు ఊడదీయిచ్చి ఎగరించరా. వాటికి అక్కడ పెద్దలు సై అని చేతులు కలపరా.
ఆ ఆడవాళ్ళను అందరి ముందు అంగాలను పట్టి ఇష్టం వచ్చినట్టు సిగ్గు లేకుండా చేసే చేష్టలు ఏమిటి.
అది కూడా దేవుని జాతరలలో చేయడం మంచా చెడా.
( కోటప్ప కొండ ఇంకా మరికొన్ని ప్రాంతాలలో )

అట్లాగే వ్యభిచారం ఎక్కువగా, రంకు సంబంధాలు, బహు భార్యత్వం, మొగుళ్ళను వదిలేయటం , లేచిపోవటం , పని కోసం భార్యలను కూతుళ్ళను కూడా పండబెట్టడం , ఉన్నత కుటుంభలలో కూడా ఈ లంజ తనం సాగటం కోస్తా లోని చాల ప్రాంతాలలో సధారణం .

తెలంగాణ లో రాయలసీమ లో ఒక నానుడి ఉంది.

కోస్తాంధ్రా వాళ్ళ పిల్లను చేసుకోరు( లంజ తనానికి బయపడీ) వాళ్ళకు పిల్లను ఇవ్వరు ( మగ వాళ్ళు రండలు అని, అంటే మగతనం ఉండదని) .

అట్లా అని పెళ్ళిళ్ళు చేసుకోరని కాదు , చేసుకుంటారు.

ఇట్లా అనాలని కాదు కాని చెడు ఎక్కడైనా ఉందని చెప్పటానికే
నా ప్రయాస.

మీరు కుడా EMOTIONS కి లొంగి అట్లా అనుంటారని అనుకుంటున్నాను.

అట్లాగే మీ మీద ఈ మాటలతో పొడవటానికి కాదు , ఉదాహరణ కు చెప్పనంతే.

మంచి చెడు రెండూ మనలో భగమే , ఇది మీ ఒక్కరికని కాదు చదువుకున్న మనుషులందరికి , ముఖ్యంగా తెలంగాణ పేరుతో అంధ్రా, సీమ పేరుతో పిచ్చి కూతలు కూసే వాళ్ళందరికీ .

తల్లి లాంటి తెలంగాణ పేరుతో చెప్పుకుతిరిగే దొంగలు కాదు నమ్మక ద్రోహులు, నీచులకు వారి అసలు రంగు బటపడే రోజు వస్తుంది . అప్పుడు మిగిలేవి చెప్పుదెబ్బలే.

అప్పటివరకు మనం ఓపిక పడుదాము .

ఒకరినొకరు ప్రాంతాల వారీ గా తిట్టుకునే పద్ధతి మనకు మంచిది కాదు.

మీ అభిమాని,

రమాకాంత్ రెడ్డి . కం ”

అర్థమయ్యిందనుకుంటా ఏ విషయం పై మాట్లాడుతున్ననో ..

ఇట్లు,

రమాకాంత్ రెడ్డి

ఫిబ్రవరి 5, 2010

TTD Archives receives legendary C.P. Brown’s photograph

Filed under: ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్,Language,Rayalaseema,Telugu — kanred @ 8:49 సా.
Tags: ,

source:The Hindu: Rare acquisition for TTD archives

ఆంధ్ర భాశోద్ధరక C.P.Brown

REMEMBERING A LUMINARY: A photograph of the legendary British Collector of Kadapa, C.P.Brown (sitting middle), taken about 175 years ago during his visit to Gurramkonda in Chittoor district.

Here’s some good news for those who were longing to see the photograph of the legendary British Collector of erstwhile Kadapa — C.P. Brown. It was a chance acquisition even for the TTD’s Digital Library, which now claims that it has secured the rare photograph passed on to its director, Bhuman, by one Saligrama Srinivasacharyulu of Valmikipuram.

Mr Bhuman had recently led a TTD contingent to Tarigonda village — the birthplace of the saint-poetess Tarigonda Vengamamba for a function arranged to commemorate her works in praise of Lord Venkateswara. It was on this occasion that he casually broached with the Acharyulu about Brown’s photograph still evading all those who are on a hunt for the same.

Unsuccessful search

Some of the big names in the Telugu literary world, who were engaged in the `search mission’, according to Mr Bhuman were Arudra, Bangore and Janumaddi. But their efforts also did not meet with any success with the result that barring speculative or imaginary portraits, so far not even a single photograph of Brown could be secured until the Acharyulu passed on one to the head of the TTD’s Digital Library.

The photograph, CDs of which were supplied on Saturday to the local media by Mr Bhuman, was reportedly taken when the high profile Collector with a deep love for Telugu visited, about 150 to 175 years ago, Ellutla village near Gurramkonda, which in those days was under Kadapa district. When Brown visited the village in connection with a land revenue dispute, he had obliged the villagers’ request for a group photo with them. Acharvulu visited Ellutla village, traced the descendents of the persons in the photo and secured not only Brown’s photo but five volumes of palm-leaf manuscripts on some ancient works. That would be studied later.

జనవరి 1, 2010

దొంగలు దొంగలు కలిసి ఊళ్ళు పంచుకున్నరంట( YSR AND HIS AIDES )

దొంగలు దొంగలు కలిసి ఊరు పంచుకున్నరంట

Money backs ‘ Son- rise’ in Andhra , ABOUT Y.S. & Co.

Money backs ‘ Son- rise’ in Andhra by Bharat Bhushan [PUBLISHED ON 3rd october 2009 in 10th page of MAIL TODAY NEWS PAPER.]

ABOUT THE EDITOR Mr. BHARATH BHUSHAN

AN ARTICLE FROM MAIL TODAY NEWS BY BHARATH BHUSHAN

Money backs ‘ Son- rise’ in Andhra

by Bharat Bhushan

IT HAS been a month since the former Andhra Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhar Reddy ( YSR) died in a helicopter crash.

The Congress high command has allowed his son, Y S Jaganmohan Reddy and his supporters to run riot in this period.

They paid people whose next of kin died of old age, chronic illness or other causes to say that they had died of shock after learning of YSR’s untimely and tragic death. This number was totted up to nearly 600 with talk of nearly half a dozen “ suicides”. Surprisingly, if the Jaganmohan Reddy run Sakshi TV and newspaper of the same name are to be believed, many of those who died of shock gave a dying declaration that after YSR only his son could continue his propoor policies as chief minister. India has not witnessed such a farce since Independence.

Today, in Andhra Pradesh, it would seem that there is no other Congress leader than Jaganmohan Reddy, no administration, no governance and a chief minister whose writ does not run over his own council of ministers.

Ironically, by allowing Jaganmohan Reddy to continue his unseemly blackmail, the Congress high command is transforming the political novice into the political leader that he never was.

But more of that later. One must first ask how such a political greenhorn enjoys, according to his claims, the support of three- fourths of Andhra MLAs. The answer lies in the changing pattern of political patronage in Andhra Pradesh.

Time was when Congressmen like others in public life accumulated political capital not only by their propeople initiatives but also through fostering intricate patron- client relationships.

This entailed appointing supporters to non- elected positions in the party and the government, helping them build their own patronage networks by giving them clear advantages such as access to the state machinery, and funding their election to local bodies, workplace unions, etc. In short, the attempt was to demonstrate to them that there were political advantages to be had by aligning with the party in power.

Patronage

Andhra Pradesh seems to be changing that structure of patronage.

Instead of giving partymen a share in one’s political capital — the more one shared it, the more it grew — the Congress supporters are given a stake in the state’s economic enterprises.

YSR ushered in this revolution.

He converted his key supporters into businessmen, industrialists, contractors and realtors. Their loyalty to the party or the leader was based on pure economic interest.

YSR rewarded them with contracts in state sponsored irrigation projects ( the much- publicised Rs. 130,000 crore “ Jalyagnam” projects), highway projects, real estate activities, development of Special Economic Zones ( SEZs), land grants and housing schemes in urban as well as rural areas. The loyalty of a majority of the 156 Congress MLAs who got tickets in the last assembly elections was secured through such largesse. Some others have benefitted with smooth and quick approvals of their business ventures.

Those Congressmen who got irrigation project contracts during the YSR regime include MPs T Subbirami Reddy, Kavuri Sambasiva Rao and Rayapati Sambasiva Rao; state ministers Komatireddy Venkat Reddy and P Ramachandra Reddy; and MLA Adala Prabhakar Reddy.

And these are only the big fish — many other party MLAs like Adinarayana Reddy, Srikanth Reddy, Gurunath Reddy, and A Indrakaran Reddy ( former MLA) are believed to have got smaller irrigation and associated road works contracts.

Andhra Congress MLAs whose real estate business thrived during YSR’s chief ministerial tenure include ministers Shilpa Mohan Reddy and Jupalli Krishna Rao, who defaulted on payment of crores of rupees to an urban co- operative bank and Lagadapati Rajagopal ( Congress MP from Vijayawada who is building Lanco Hills — the country’s biggest real estate project). Many other Congress leaders like D Sudheer Reddy ( MLA) and Malreddy Ranga Reddy ( former MLA) have benefitted from the Rs. 3,000 crore Outer Ring Road project of Hyderabad.

Nellore MP Mekapati Rajamohan Reddy and his brother Chandramohan Reddy, MLA, have won contracts for roads and building works. K Pratap Reddy, the Treasurer of the Congress, has stakes in the cement industry and is believed to have business links with the YSR family.

Vijayawada Congress MP Lagapati Rajagopal is believed by many to be the biggest beneficiary of the YSR regime and is involved in businesses ranging from power, iron castings, real estate and infrastructure.

In short, it is difficult to find a Congressman of any consequence in Andhra who has not benefitted from the largesse of the state government.

Several businessmen, industrialists, realtors and contractors who are not directly in politics — some cutting across political lines like the Karnataka BJP minister and mine lord G Janardhan Reddy of Bellary who was given 10,700 acres of land in Anantapur — are all worried about their projects in various stages of development. They have a right to be worried.

Family

Businesses which are underwritten and steered by someone at the helm of the state are less likely to fail. They were failsafe investments. Now their future is suddenly uncertain.

It has taken decades for Indian entrepreneurs like the Tatas, Birlas, Ambanis and Bajajs to convert family businesses into billion dollar corporations.

The Congress party under YSR in Andhra showed us that this could be done in barely five years.

The YSR family’s market capitalisation is estimated to be nearly three- fourths of the annual budget of Andhra Pradesh which is around Rs 1,00,000 crore. The family enterprises and business interests spread across real estate ( Silicon Builders, Classic Realty, Bhagvath Sannidhi Estates), infrastructure ( Silicon Infrastructure, Shalom Infrastructure, Marvel Infrastructure, Janani Infrastructure, Athena Infra, Viz Projects), cement ( Bharathi Cement), chemicals ( Pulivendula Polymers), plantations ( Forest Plantations India Ltd), power generation ( Athena Energy, Athena Kakinada Power, Sainz Hydro), newspapers ( Jagati Publications) and television ( Indira Television) besides owning Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

The formidable business empire that YSR and his son set up has stakeholders among those who are in politics and business in Andhra today. The future of their investments depends on having a constant gardener from the YSR family to tend their interests. They cannot afford to let Jaganmohan Reddy lose out in the chief ministerial sweepstakes.

Indulgence

It is difficult to understand on the other hand why the Congress high command is so indulgent towards Jaganmohan’s shenanigans. Does the party have good reason to allow the mess that Jaganmohan Reddy’s supporters are creating in Andhra Pradesh? YSR was very close to Rajiv Gandhi who appointed him the state Congress chief at the relatively young age of 35 years. Sonia Gandhi has always valued loyalty to her late husband.

More importantly, YSR also delivered politically — not once but in two consecutive assembly and Lok Sabha elections. There would have been no UPA I or II without the electoral outcome of Andhra adding muscle to the Congress.

Another speculation doing the rounds is that the Congress high command is reluctant to act quickly against Jaganmohan Reddy because YSR was also believed to be one of the largest funders of the party.

Those sources of funds are now controlled by his son. So instead of cutting him to size, the party is being indulgent. Why else would the party allow speculation about Jaganmohan Reddy being offered Deputy Chief Ministership or a place in the central council of ministers? Could it be on the other hand that Jaganmohan Reddy is being allowed to demonstrate the support he enjoys in order to nurse his image as a mass leader? There could well be a strategy to allow the demonstration of support and soon people will forget that YSR’s son is a political novice. The blatant hooliganism of his supporters seems to have scuttled his chances to fill YSR’s shoes immediately. However, this will not prevent his well- wishers from claiming that YSR Junior has come into his own as a political leader with a mass base. This would pave the way for his accommodation in the party or the government.

bharat.bhushan@ mailtoday.in

డిసెంబర్ 14, 2009

ఈ పాటలు బాగున్నాయి, నాకు నచ్చాయి.

    జయ జయహే తెలంగాణ జననీ జయకేతనం
    ముక్కోటి గొంతుకలు ఒక్కటైన చేతనం
    తరతరాల చరిత గల తల్లీ నీరాజనం
    పది జిల్లల నీ పిల్లలు ప్రణమిల్లిన శుభతరుణం
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    ‘పంపన’కు జన్మనిచ్చి ‘బద్దెన’కు పద్యమిచ్చి
    భీమకవికి చనుబాల బీజాక్షరమైన తల్లి
    ‘హాలుని’ గాథాసప్తశతికి ఆయువులూదిన నేల
    బృహత్కథల తెలంగాణ కోటిలింగాల కోన
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    ప్రజల భాషలో కావ్య ప్రమాణాలు ప్రకటించిన
    తెలుగులో తొలి ప్రజాకవి ‘పాలకుర్కి సోమన్న’
    రాజ్యాన్నే ధిక్కరించి రాములోరి గుడిని కట్టి
    కవిరాజై వెలిగె దిశల ‘కంచర్ల గోపన్న’
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    కాళిదాస కావ్యాలకు భాష్యాలను రాసినట్టి
    ‘మల్లినాథసూరి’ మా మెతుకు సీమ కన్నబిడ్డ
    ధూళికట్ట నేలినట్టి బౌద్ధానికి బంధు వతడు
    ‘దిగ్నాగుని’ కన్న నేల ధిక్కారమే జన్మహక్కు
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    ‘పోతన’దీ పురిటిగడ్డ ‘రుద్రమ’దీ వీరగడ్డ
    గండరగండడు ‘కొమరం భీముడే’ నీ బిడ్డ
    కాకతీయ కళాప్రభల కాంతిరేఖ రామప్ప
    గోలుకొండ నవాబుల గొప్ప వెలిగే చార్మీనార్‌
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణఠి
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    రాచకొండ ఏలుబడిగ రంజిల్లిన రేచెర్ల
    ‘సర్వజ్ఞ సింగభూపాలుని’ బంగరు భూమి
    వాణీ నా రాణీ అంటు నినదించిన కవికుల రవి
    ‘పిలలమఱ్ఱి పినవీరభద్రుడు’ మాలో రుద్రుడు
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    సమ్మక్క’లు ‘సారక్క’లు ‘సర్వాయిపాపన్న’లు
    సబ్బండావర్ణాల సాహసాలు కొనియాడుతు
    ఊరూర పాటలైన ‘మీరసాబు’ వీరగాథ
    దండునడిపే పాలమూరు ‘పండుగోల్ల సాయన్న’
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    కవిగాయక వైతాళిక కళలా మంజీరాలు
    డప్పు డమరుకము డక్కి శారదస్వరనాదాలు
    పల్లవుల చిరుజల్లుల ప్రతి ఉల్లము రంజిల్లగా
    అనునిత్యం నీ గానం అమ్మ నీవే మా ప్రాణం
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    జానపద జనజీవన జావళీలు జాలువార
    జాతిని జాగృతపరిచే గీతాల జనజాతర
    వేలకొలదిగా వీరులు నేలకొరిగిపోతెనేమి
    తరుగనిదీ నీ త్యాగం మరువనిదీ శ్రమయాగం
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    బడులగుడులతో పల్లెల ఒడలు పులకరించాలి
    విరిసే జనవిజ్ఞానం నీ కీర్తిని పెంచాలి
    తడబడకుండా జగాన తల ఎత్తుకోని బ్రతుక
    ఒక జాతిగా నీ సంతతి ఓయమ్మా వెలగాలి
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

    గోదావరి కృష్ణమ్మలు తల్లి నిన్ను తడుపంగ
    పచ్చని మా నేలల్లో పసిడి సిరులు కురవంగ
    సుఖశాంతుల తెలంగాణ సుభిక్షంగా ఉండాలి
    ప్రత్యేక రాష్ట్రాన ప్రజల కలలు పండాలి
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ
    జై తెలంగాణ జై జై తెలంగాణ ॥జయ జయహే॥

కవి అందెశ్రీ

FOR THIS POET’S BIOGRAPHY PLEASE VISIT
http://www.koumudi.net/General/andesri.html

http://andesri.wordpress.com/

జాతీయ గీతాలపై జరుగుతున్న చర్చలో తరచు ‘జయజయహే తెలంగాణ’ గీత ప్రస్తావన వస్తున్నది. చాలాకాలంగా ప్రజల నాలుకలపై నర్తిస్తున్నప్పటికీ ఈ గీతం ఇప్పటి వరకు ఎక్కడా ప్రచురితం కాలేదు. అందెశ్రీ రాసిన ఈ గీతాన్ని తాజా చరణాలతో సహా పాఠకుల కోరిక మేరకు ప్రచురిస్తున్నాం. – ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి ఎడిటర్‌

06 డిసెంబర్ 2009, ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి సౌజన్యంతోటి

COPY PASTE FROM- http://discover-telangana.org/wp/2009/12/07/jayahe_telangana/#comment-4314

బండెనుక బండి కట్టి…

బండెనుక బండి కట్టి
పదహారు బండ్లు కట్టి
ఏ బండ్లె వస్తవ్ కొడుకో
నైజాము సర్కరోడా
నాజీల మించినవ్ రో
నైజాము సర్కరోడా

పోలీసు మిలిట్రి రెండు
బలవంతులనుకోని
నువ్వు పల్లెలు దోస్తివి కొడుకో
మా పల్లెలు దోస్తివి కొడుకో
నైజాము సర్కరోడా

స్త్రీ పురుషులంత గలిసి
ఇల్లాలమంత గలిసి
వడిసేల రాళ్లు గట్టి
వడివడిగ గొట్టితేను
కారాపు నీళ్లు దెచ్చి
కండ్లళ్ల జల్లితేను
నీ మిలిట్రి బారిపొయెరో
నీ మిలిట్రి బారిపొయెరో…
నైజాము సర్కరోడా

సుట్టుముట్టూ సూర్యపేట,
నట్టనడుమ నల్లగొండ
నువ్వుండేది హైద్రబాదు
దాని పక్క గోలుకొండ
గోలుకొండా ఖిలా కిందా
గోలుకొండా ఖిలా కిందా
నీ గోరి కడుతం కొడుకో
నైజాము సర్కరోడా

బండి యాదగిరి

COPY PASTE FROM http://hridayam.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/brute-force-on-telangana/

డిసెంబర్ 10, 2009

అర్థ శతాభ్తపు అజ్ఞాన్నాని స్వరాజ్యం అందామా …స్వర్ణోత్సవాలు చేద్దామా…

EMI ANDAAMU MANAMU DEENNI.

neenu telangana vaadinaa , andhraa vanna , rayalaseema vannaa ani adugodduuuuuu.

NENU EVVADINI KAADU.
NENU EVVADINI KAANANI CHEPPADAANIKEY ISTAPADUTHANU.
NENU TELUGU WAADINI KAADU
NENU TELUGU WAADINI AYINANDUKU SIGGUPADUTHUNNANU.
NENU INDIAN NI AYINANDUKU BADHAPADUTHUNNANU.

NITYAMU PRANTALA PERU THO KOTTUKOVADAMU…
KULAALA PERU THO GOTHULU THOVVUKOVADU
MATHAALA PERU THO MANTALU PENCHUKOVADAMU..
ANDAMaa DEENINI SWARAAJYAMANI , INKA SWARNOTSAVAALANU CHEDDAAMAA

EMANI ANDAAMU PRAJALA KUNNA PRANTAALA MEEDA UNMAADANNI
EMANI ANDAAMU KAPATA RAAJAKEEYAANNI…
ENDUKU ANNI GORRELU KATIKUDINI NAMMUTHAYANI….
ENDUKU UDVEGALAKU LONGIPOTHARANI…

PRANTHALA MADHYA SAMATOULYANIKI VIDIPOOVADAME MAARGAMAA?
TELANGAANA RAAYALASEEMA UTTARAANDHRA VENUKA PADDAYANI ERUGAMA?
EMI CHESAAMU MANAM VEETINI BAAGU PAPACHATAANIKI….?
ENDUKU ALOCHINCHARU ANNI PAARTYOLLU MIMMALNI VIBHAJINCHI PAALISTHUNNARANNI?

MOSAPOKURAA CHADUVUKUNNA VERRI VENGALAPPA
NEE CHEDINA BRATHUKU MAARADURAAA ITLAAYITHE

MANCHI NI PENCHI POSHINCHARANNAA..
ADE NEEKU AVASARAANI KI VASTHUNDANNAAA

MATHAM MATTU RAAA
KULAM KULLU RAAA
MANAVATHVAMU MAHANEEYAMU RAA
MANCHI NI MARISTHE MANUGADA NEEKU LEEDU RAA

PAAPAM MANCHI VAADNI MAATA CHELLADU
VAANNI MAATALU LOKANIKI CHEDURAA
CHADUVUTHO INDUKU SAMBANDAMU LEDU RAA
EEY MAATALO ANDARU OKATEY RAA
MANAKU PRAJASWAMYAM VADDU RAA
MANANDARAMU EPPATIKI MAARAMU RAA
BRITISH VAADE MANAKU CORRECT RAA
MANAMANTHAA VAANI KAALI DAGGARA BANISALAMU RAA….

EEY ROJU JARIGINA DAANINI CHOOSINA THARUVATHA NAA MANASU LONI MAATA….

JAYAPRAKASH MAATANU EVVARU VINALEDU ,
OKKA MEDIA KUDA AAYANA OPINIONS NI REPORT CHEYALEDU

KCR DEEKSHA NI
VIDYARTHULA VIDHWAMSAANNI
VIVIDHA PRANTHALA NAYAKULA VISHAANNI , VIDYARTHULA VIKRUTHA CHESTALU, OSMANIA ANDHRA NAAGARJUNA KAAKATEEYA KRISHNA DEVA RAAYA VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY ANTHA OKATEY AGNAANAMU LO
INDULO OKARINI MINCHINOLLU INKOKARU

VEELLU MANA BHAVISYATHHU…HUH………..

PAAPAM IAS (IST RANK ) NU VADILI EDO CHEDDAMANI VASTHE MIGILEDI CHIPPA NEY ANI CHAATI CHEPPARU MANOLLU

MANCHITANAANIKI PRAJALA GOURAVAMU….
” RAAJAKEEYAMU CHEYAKUNDAA PRASTHUTHA VISHAYANNI PARISHKARINCHALANNA MAATALAKU PRAADHANYAMU LEDU ” VAANI MAATA ARANYA RODANA.

INLA MANA DRAMA NAYAKULA MAATLAKU WHISTLE LU CHAPPATLU .
CHOOSI MECCHUTHARU . VOTE LA VARSHAM KURIPISTHARU

TELANGAANA AANDHRA RAAYALASEEMA ANI EVADIKI VAADU GOPPAGAA FEEL AVUTHAARU

MANCHI CHEDDAMU ANI ANYAYANNI EDIRIDDAMANI JAYAPRAKASH VASTHEY VAADE ANYAAYAM AYIPOYADU.

MANAMU IKA BAAGUPADAMU.

RAMAKANTH

డిసెంబర్ 6, 2009

Taylor C. Sherman’s reviews on Telangana Issue : Integration of the princely state of Hyderabad and the making of the post colonial state in India(1948–56).

This is an account by a neutral spectator in the western scholar, Taylor C. Sherman.

His article is

The integration of the princely state of Hyderabad and the making of the postcolonial state in India, 1948-56, Taylor C. Sherman. Indian Economic Social History Review 2007; 44; 489 DOI: 10.1177/001946460704400404.”

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/44/4/489.pdf

There is near consensus amongst scholars of post colonial India that, at least in retrospect, the Nehruvian period was one of relative calm and stability. According to this line of thought, independence did herald change in India, including the introduction of democracy with universal suffrage and a constitution with a charter of fundamental rights, but the trauma of partition, the war over Kashmir and the integration of the princely states, ‘ensured that precisely those traits of the Raj which Indian nationalists had struggled against were now reinforced’.1 The police, military and bureaucracy inherited from the colonial regime, it is agreed, enabled the Congress-led government to ‘enforce central authority’, and to ensure stability in a unified Indian state.2 The following pages challenge this view by examining the integration of the princely state of Hyderabad into the Indian Union. It is argued that this view posthumously invests the colonial state with qualities it did not have. The idea that the colonial state acted as a monolithic machine to stamp out dissent and disorder where it pleased is unsustainable. Central policy was often fraught with contradictions.
Institutions, especially the police, courts and prisons, were often overwhelmed by the work thrust upon them during times of unrest. Tensions between the centre and local administrators frequently erupted, as officers used their position as ‘the man on the spot’ to act contrary to orders or to justify committing acts of violence against the subject population. Taken as a whole, therefore, the colonial state was often either weak and inefficient, or extraordinarily violent and ineffective. By taking the absorption of Hyderabad as a case study, this work examines the ways in which the new government coped with its inheritance.
Hitherto, the story of the integration of the princely state of Hyderabad into the Indian Union has been told from a number of relatively parochial perspectives. There have been personal stories of hardship and bravery during the conflict;4 detailed analyses of the tortured negotiations between the Indian government, the Nizam of Hyderabad and the British;5 clinical accounts of the military operations;6 and histories of the communist Telangana movement in the territory.7 None of these accounts, however, have examined the impact of the integration of Hyderabad on the formation of the state in newly independent India. The absorption of Hyderabad provides an excellent study of the nature of the postcolonial Indian state for three reasons. First, Hyderabad had been part of the calculations of all-India political parties at least since the 1930s. The territory
was therefore a vital part of the self-image of newly-independent India. Second, it was the Ministry of States, part of the central government in Delhi, which assumed overall responsibility for the integration of the former princely states. After the police action of September 1948, the Hyderabad regime was virtually disbanded.

As a result, the new authorities had relative freedom to shape the new territory as they pleased. Finally, as Hyderabad was brought into the Union, police, military and members of the bureaucracy were drafted in from the rest of India to rebuild Hyderabad. One can, therefore, use the case of Hyderabad not only to try to understand the ‘mind’ of the central government, but to examine the extent to which policies designed by the centre were successfully implemented on the ground. When they assumed power in Hyderabad, the new Indian government faced an array of questions, the answers to which would impact the shape and character of the new nation-state as a whole. These included: how to deal with the limitations of the military, police, and bureaucracy which they had inherited; how to frame the new constitution to protect the integrity of the country; how to manage relations between Hindus and Muslims, whether in the bureaucracy or in the population; and how to fight communism and ensure the loyalty of their new citizens. This article explores these questions in three sections. First, it situates the princely state of Hyderabad at the geographic, economic and cultural heart of the subcontinent,
and locates the territory in the vision of India imagined by the British and their Indian successors. Second, it analyses the ways in which the Indian authorities addressed the question of relations between Hindus and Muslims after the fall of the Muslim-led government of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Finally, it turns to the ways in which the Indian army, and then the civilian authorities, confronted the communist Telangana movement in the eastern part of the state. It is argued below that, in the years shortly after independence, India’s internal character had yet to be set in stone, and the experience of the integration of Hyderabad reflects the vibrancy and uncertainty of the early Nehruvian period.

Hyderabad and the Indian Union

The history of the awkward place of the princely states in the transfer of power negotiations is well-known.9 On the eve of independence, several large states, including Hyderabad, had declined to join either India or Pakistan. Each state presented its own unique problems, but the government of independent India believed that the accession of Hyderabad to the Indian Union was ineluctable. As early as June 1947, Nehru had warned that he would ‘encourage rebellion in all states that go against us’.10 In the new Indian government, the accession of the subcontinent’s second largest princely state was viewed as a foregone conclusion because Hyderabad could not be independent except in name, given its geographical position.11 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s home member and minister for states, remarked, ‘Hyderabad is, as it were, situated in India’s belly. How can the belly breathe if it is cut off from the main body?’12 In the summer of 1948, as India’s statesmen, especially Patel, began to hint of an invasion, the British encouraged India to avoid using force, but repeatedly declined the Nizam’s requests to intervene on his behalf.
In the months preceding independence, however, Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur had refused to accede to either India or Pakistan. He attempted, instead,to manoeuvre his state towards independence, from where he could negotiate an alliance with India, rather than amalgamation into India.14 To avoid accession, the Nizam’s government had signed a Standstill Agreement with the Government of India. The accord provided that relations between the state and the Indian Union would remain for one year as they had been prior to independence. India would handle Hyderabad’s foreign affairs, but Indian Army troops stationed in Secunderabad would be removed. Soon after the agreement had been struck, however, each side began to accuse the other of violating its terms. The Nizam alleged that the Indian government was imposing an informal embargo by using its control over the railways leading into the state to deny the territory vital goods, especially arms and medical supplies.15 India claimed that the government of Hyderabad was edging towards independence by divesting itself of its Indian securities, banning the Indian currency, halting the export of ground nuts, organising illegal gun-running from Pakistan, and inviting new recruits to its army and its irregular forces, the Razakars. These moves were regarded in Delhi as part of a ‘comprehensive plan to break up the economic cohesion of India’.

The Situation in Hyderabad in 1948

While the Nizam attempted to manoeuvre himself towards independence, the internal situation in the territory was deteriorating. The state had been crippled by communist insurgents on the one hand, and forces loyal to the Nizam of Hyderabad on the other. To a limited extent, Congress volunteers engaged in satyagraha had contributed to the internal disorder by disrupting courts, filling jails, and engaging in sabotage with the aim of convincing the Nizam to join the Indian Union. As stories of the conflict in the state spread in India, and refugees fled into the surrounding Indian provinces, the Government of India concluded that the unrest threatened to undermine peace in the whole of India.

When, in 1947, the authorities in Hyderabad refused to accede to either dominion, many opposition parties in the state called for the Nizam to join the Indian Union. The Congress launched a satyagraha, and encouraged students to leave schools, and lawyers to boycott courts. More radical members of the Hyderabad State Congress planned acts of sabotage, organised raids against government property and communications, and authorised their members to take action in ‘selfdefence’, with weapons if necessary. According to an Indian government note in March 1948, ‘the educational institutions function no more, the law courts are barren and the commercial life is shattered’.17 As many as 21,000 Congressmen were said to have been arrested.18 However, the Hyderabad State Congress Party was divided organisationally along regional lines, and ideologically between socialists and liberals; its impact on the internal situation in the state, therefore, was more limited than that of the communists.19 The fight between the communists and forces loyal to the Nizam, by contrast, was characterised in the spring of 1948 as ‘a people’s revolt on the one side and fascist orgy and anarchy on the other’.20 Its roots were in the insurgency begun in 1944–45 in the Nalgonda and Warangal districts, known as the Telangana area, in the east of the territory. Forces loyal to the Nizam of Hyderabad sought to repress this communist movement. These forces comprised of police and military, as well as local members of the Razakars. The Razakars, headed by Kasim Razvi, were a paramilitary organization comprised of volunteers who were said to be as enthusiastic as they were undisciplined.21 Razvi and his volunteers were associated with the Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul-Muslimein, a political party with considerable influence over the Nizam and dedicated to maintaining Muslim rule in Hyderabad.
Both communists and forces loyal to the Nizam employed brutal measures to strike against their enemy and intimidate villagers into collaboration. According to a pamphlet that the Government of India had drawn up for public consumption, between 15 August 1947 and 13 September 1948, the communists had murdered 2,000 people, attacked 22 police outposts, destroyed village records, manhandled 141 village officials, seized 230 guns, eight revolvers and one rifle, looted or destroyed paddy worth Rs 70,000, robbed cash and jewelery worth Rs 10,43,668, and destroyed 20 customs outposts.23 While the primary fight up until early 1948 had been between the communists and the Nizam’s forces, in May 1948 the Nizam and urban members of the communist party struck an improbable tactical alliance against a common enemy, the ‘bourgeois’ Indian Union. According to the agreement, which aimed to bolster the fight for the independence of Hyderabad, the Nizam amnestied communists from jails, cancelled outstanding arrest warrants and lifted the ban on the party.
During the summer of 1948, the Razakars continued to seek out and eliminate the enemies of the regime.24 They targeted not only Hindus, but Muslims whose loyalty was in doubt.25 As it became clear that negotiations with the Indian Union were stalemated, they also courted confrontation with Indian forces. Their raids against trains and villages in Madras, the Central Provinces (CP) and Bombay raised panic in these provinces. In July, Razakars killed six Indian Army troops in an ambush near the Indian enclave of Nanaj.26 Equally, there were allegations that Indian troops crossed Hyderabad’s borders as they gave chase to Razakars. The government in Delhi concluded that the increasing influence and violence of these unruly volunteer paramilitaries proved that the Nizam had lost control over his own territory.
These battles threatened to spill into Union territory in more than one way. First, refugees fleeing the disorders escaped into Indian territory to form large camps in the provinces of Madras and Bombay. Some estimates put the number of refugees at 40,000 in CP alone.27 Second, though the fault lines in the conflict did not run neatly along religious lines, the perceived ‘communal’ nature of the fighting threatened to revive Hindu-Muslim tensions in India.
The Nizam’s government tended to privilege a few thousand Muslims, leaving an underclass of poor Muslims. Nationalist Muslims in the state tended to oppose the Nizam while, as far away as Delhi, the Socialist Party enrolled Muslim volunteers to agitate against the Nizam.29 At the same time, the Depressed Classes Association and Depressed Classes Conference in Hyderabad had joined hands with the Nizam in June 1947 to fight against incorporation into the Indian Union, because they believed accession would entail domination by caste Hindus.30 The structure of rule in the state, however, where a predominantly Muslim government and gentry held power over large numbers of disadvantaged, of whom the majority were Hindus, appeared to divide the population along religious lines. And some political parties took advantage of this. Since the war, the All-India Hindu Mahasabha had used this government structure to gather support for their organization. In 1941 they began to keep a record of all, ‘tyrannous and political injustices and unfairness on the Hindus in all Provinces and particularly under Muslim administration and Muslim states’.31 Hyderabad was no exception.32 As the violence of the Nizam’s forces increased in Hyderabad, Hindu nationalists called on Muslims throughout India ‘to give proof of their loyalty to the Indian Union’ by opposing the Nizam’s regime.33 Clearly, the subtleties and complexities of the Hyderabad situation were being folded into all-India communal politics.
The Government of India, therefore, concluded that the unrest in Hyderabad threatened to destabilize ‘the communal situation in the whole of India’.34 In the volatile international situation in South Asia in the year following independence, Nehru had been reluctant to use force to bring Hyderabad into the Indian Union.35 The Indian economy was suffering a crisis of inflation, accompanied by a panic in the gold market, which impelled the Government of India to re-impose controls on textiles and other essential commodities. In addition, the autumn of 1948 was a tense time for the militaries on the subcontinent. Pakistan had admitted that its troops were present in Kashmir, and Nehru was writing of being at war with its neighbor, albeit an undeclared one.36 India feared that any move against Hyderabad would prompt a military response from Pakistan. Though Pakistan had no plans to protect Hyderabad with arms, India did not know this.37 Moreover, the new government in India was trying to calm tensions after the violence of partition, and struggling to provide for millions of refugees. The situation in Hyderabad, they concluded, must be resolved before it adversely affected India’s internal and international security.
On 13 September 1948, therefore, the Government of India declared a state of emergency, and sent its troops into Hyderabad State. During the ‘police action’, the Indian Army entered Hyderabad with the objective of forcing the Nizam to reinstall Indian troops in Secunderabad so as to allow them to restore order in the state. The Nizam surrendered in four days, and the Government of India appointed Major-General J.N. Chaudhuri as Military Governor. Delhi decided that the Nizam could retain his position as Rajpramukh, though law-making and enforcement power rested with the Military Governor.

Hindu-Muslim Relations and the Character of the New Hyderabad State

Once they had seized control of the territory, the new Military Governor, Major General Chaudhuri, the Chief Civil Administrator, D.S. Bakhle, and the Government in Delhi had to ask themselves what character and composition they wished the new Hyderabad state to have. This question involved a number of different elements. First, to what extent would those who took part in violence before and during the police action be punished for their activities? Second, how far would the Muslim-dominated administration in the state be altered? Finally, what role would the Congress Party have in the new state? Given that each of these questions impacted Hindu-Muslim relations, Nehru felt that the decisions that they made in Hyderabad would be seen as the touchstone of the Indian government’s minority policy.
Before the invasion of Hyderabad, Nehru’s primary concern had been to normalise Hindu-Muslim relations there and in the rest of the country. He wrote to Patel that, after the problem of the Razakars, all other issues were ‘relatively secondary’.
Before the first Indian troops set foot in Hyderabad, there was much uncertainty over whether the police action would provoke an adverse reaction amongst Muslims in India. In the state’s surrounding provinces, therefore, provincial governments detained dozens of Muslims, including Members of the Legislative Assembly, for ‘security reasons’, on the grounds that their sympathies with Hyderabad might spur them into inciting unrest. However, as troops marched into the state, many Muslims in India lent their support to the police action.
Prominent Muslims in Delhi publicly welcomed the Government of India’s choice to come to the aid of the ‘innocent masses’ threatened by the Razakars, and appealed for calm. In the event, there was no trouble in India during the five days of the police action. Indeed, before reports emerged of fighting within the state, Nehru had ventured to declare that Hyderabad had ‘suddenly opened out a new picture of communal peace and harmony’.
Quickly, however, stories began to seep out of large-scale violence within the territory in the immediate aftermath of the police action. It is unclear exactly what happened between the people of Hyderabad, the members of the falling regime, and the invading forces during and immediately after the police action, but it appears that there was widespread bloodshed as the population took the opportunity to commit acts of violence against the Razakars and other Muslims. Two prominent nationalists, Pandit Sunderlal and Qazi Abdulghaffar, prepared a report on the situation after Nehru appointed them to tour the state and assess the extent of the destruction, but the original was suppressed and only scraps of it remain.44 They recorded that after 13 September, there had been a widespread anti-Muslim purge, which had occurred primarily in the Marathwada and Telangana areas. What evidence is available suggests that Hindu residents as well as some members of the Army attacked persons and property in the weeks after the police action began.
Conservative estimates suggest that 50,000 Muslims were killed.46 Others claim several hundred thousand died.47 Indian troops in some places remained aloof from these activities, in others, they were implicated in them.48 Sunderlal and Abdulghaffar concluded that, ‘In general the attitude of the military officers was good but the soldiers showed bigotry and hatred’.49 The invasion of Hyderabad had not heralded a new era of communal harmony in the territory. Instead, the main task of the new authorities in the state was to cope with the aftermath of the turmoil.
In order to depose the existing regime and to contain the unrest, the Government of India’s police and military authorities had detained Razakars, Hindu militants, communists, and many others more loosely connected with the general upheaval.
According to their own figures, the military and police detained over 13,000 Muslims, plus several hundred Arabs and Pathans, who were associated with the Razakars and the Nizam’s irregular forces. Another several thousand Hindus were jailed after having been implicated in the post-police action reprisals against Muslims.

Many communists were also detained. But it is clear that, with their limited knowledge
of the local situation, the invading forces simply jailed thousands of suspects without real knowledge of their activities. The police and military were captive to local informants, who took advantage of the situation to have their political enemies imprisoned.50 Indeed, many of the difficulties which the colonial regime had faced when confronting large-scale communal unrest also affected the early postcolonial
government: the police and military were disposed to make mass arrests in order to restore order, and to think about prosecution only after the event. But court cases often simply provided another arena for the conflict, and the government came under political pressure to release those detained.
Having imprisoned an estimated 17,550 people as they entered the territory, the Government of India was left with the questions of what to do with all the prisoners rounded up in the upheaval, and how to relieve the problem of overcrowded jails.52 In Hyderabad, the Government of India inherited a criminal justice system that had been paralysed by the conflict, and could not process any significant number of cases. This meant that, just as in British India, politics came to determine who was subjected to formal punishment, and who escaped. Of course, many of the political aims of the Nehru government were different from those of the British: they were concerned with not spending money, which could otherwise be used for development projects, on expensive legal proceedings; and they were sensitive to the importance of political parties in a democratic age. For their part, many members of the public remained constant in their insistence that, when the government punished participants in communal violence, this only worsened relations between those communities who were perceived to be at loggerheads with one another.53 For these reasons, though thousands were originally detained, only a few exemplary persons remained in jail by 1953.
Given the volume of cases, the military regime decided to prosecute only those ‘who indulged in the worst kind of atrocities’.54 In the six months following the Nizam’s defeat, therefore, the government released over 11,000 Muslims without trial because no incriminating evidence against them existed. They also deported some 2,000 Arabs back to Aden and a similar number of Pathans to ‘other parts of India’.55 Major-General Chaudhuri and his administration planned to prosecute the remainder of those detained. Accordingly, shortly after the proclamation of the State of Emergency, the Government of India propounded a Special Courts Order to dispense with the large numbers of persons in jail. In a word, the order was designed to process cases speedily. To this end, it relaxed the standards of written evidence by requiring only summaries of the evidence rather than full accounts; it made it impossible for an accused to deliberately delay proceedings, for example by hunger striking; and, at first, it provided for no right to appeal to higher courts. This latter provision was amended in October 1949, to allow appeals to the High Court for major offences. There was no mention either way as to
access to a lawyer, and it appears that while some of the accused obtained counsel,
others declined or were denied access to one.56 The ordinance strongly resembled those which had been passed by the colonial government during the twentieth century. For example, it incorporated the lessons that the British had learnt by making it impossible for a defendant to delay a case by hunger striking.
In reality, the Special Tribunals were anything but speedy. In each of the courts sat a three-member panel, all of whom had to be present for a case to proceed; when one member was sick or on leave, the tribunal did not meet. Further, English was the working language of the tribunals, but there were few advocates who were able to conduct a prosecution in English.58 As the trials made halting progress, thousands languished in jails, waiting for the police to finish investigating their cases or for the courts to begin their trials.
By April 1949, appeals for an amnesty were gaining volume. Thirteen Urdu newspapers jointly asked the government to free Muslims who had been imprisoned ‘on mere suspicion’ and had yet to stand trial. The editors suggested that these men had suffered in jail long enough, and that their continued detention would serve no good purpose. To release them would help create a ‘harmonious atmosphere’ in the state, and it would foster the minority community’s confidence in the government.60 Similarly, Swami Ramandanda Tirtha, leader of the Congress Party in the state, agreed that the institution of cases for events which had occurred nine months before was ‘causing great discontent’.
The constraints of governance in a democratic state had an impact in three rather contradictory ways on the decisions which the government made about these prisoners. First, as these men had been detained for several months without trial, the International Committee for the Red Cross was pressing Nehru to see that those detained were either prosecuted or released.62 Nehru had long since realised that the eyes of the world were on Hyderabad, and wished to prove that the new Indian government could be balanced in its approach to both Hindus and Muslims. Second, it was the widely held opinion amongst the new rulers of the state that the communist and ‘communalist’ parties in the state remained popular because the state Congress Party was weak. Chaudhuri, therefore, hoped that the release of prisoners would ‘rehabilitate the prestige of the Hyderabad State Congress’ Party in the eyes of the public in Hyderabad, and improve relations between the state and national sections of the party.64 Even so, there could be no general amnesty because the Military Governor still wished to prosecute prominent Razakars such as Kasim Razvi.
When the government of Hyderabad, in consultation with the Centre, weighed these arguments, they knew that any policy adopted could not be seen to favour either Hindus or Muslims. The new government convinced itself that equal blame did attach to each community. In Major-General Chaudhuri’s words, ‘in political physics, Razakar action and Hindu reaction have been almost equal and opposite’.
Thus, when it was decided to free all Hindus and to institute a programme for the review of Muslim cases with an aim to gradually letting many out of jail, the government preferred that the policy be given no publicity.67 Releases were staggered and former prisoners made to report periodically to the police.
Since the prosecutions of either Hindus or Muslims in cases of ‘communal’ violence tended to elicit allegations of bias, any cases which were brought to court had to be designed to minimise ethnic tensions. Thus, Kasim Razvi and four of his associates were prosecuted for the alleged murder of a fellow Muslim, Shoebullah Khan. The victim, a nationalist journalist who had opposed the Razakars, was killed on 22 August 1948. His murder attracted public interest, though only after the police action had begun. The Bombay Chronicle described the journalist as ‘a brave young man’ for refusing to bow to the will of the Ittehad-ul-Muslimein.
The paper went on to declare Shoebullah ‘a martyr in the cause of the people’. Though a Special Tribunal found Razvi and his cohorts guilty, they were acquitted in the High Court. The same men stood accused in the Bibinaga Dacoity Case, which ran simultaneously with the Shoebullah Khan case. In the second case, it was alleged that, when passing through Bibinaga station in a train, the accused had shouted ‘Shah-e-Osman zindabad’, but the people in the station had replied with the nationalist slogan ‘Mahatma Gandhi ki jai’. The accused then disembarked, and proceeded to burn down a house, and beat and rob those in the vicinity of the station.70 In this case, the High Court upheld the Special Tribunal’s guilty verdict, and the men were sentenced to imprisonment. It was believed that if this type of case were chosen, the prosecutions would be more likely to inspire in the public feelings of pure abhorrence or deep nationalism, rather than enmity between Hindus and Muslims.
As news of the convictions of Razvi and his men reached the public, prominent politicians again pressed Nehru to show generosity to the Muslims of Hyderabad.
The prime minister was sympathetic. Hyderabadi Muslims, he wrote to Patel, exemplified a unique ‘and rather attractive culture’, and were ‘very much above the average’.72 In essence, Nehru argued that Muslim prisoners in Hyderabad were not criminal types, and therefore did not merit punishment. Instead, their behaviour in the summer and autumn of 1948 was analogous to the ‘madness’ that seized ‘decent people’ in the country during partition. Many of those guilty of partition violence remained free in India and lived ‘as respected citizens’.73 By this logic, if the crimes of partition could be buried, so could those of Hyderabad’s accession.
Nehru also warned that if a gesture of ‘friendliness’ were not offered ‘to those who are down and out and full of fear’, these disenfranchised Muslims could join forces with the communists. Finally, the prime minister argued that in a developing state, the money spent on prosecution could have ‘brought rich results if spent on constructive activities in Hyderabad’.
When Nehru first voiced these arguments, Patel demurred. He was convinced that the promise of penal action against criminals had helped restore law and order, and that if that promise were not fulfilled, it would signal the government’s partiality for Muslims and would endanger the peace in the state.75 By the time the cases of Kasim Razvi and the ex-ministers of the Nizam’s regime had wound their way through the judicial system, Patel had passed away, and elections were about to be held under a much improved political atmosphere in the state. In January 1952, all ex-ministers were released; only Kasim Razvi and a few members of the Nizam’s regime who had been involved in the most notorious cases remained in prison.
In the end, only a handful of symbolic Razakars were punished with formal imprisonment. Like its colonial predecessor, the Indian government faced administrative constraints which precluded the use of the ordinary judicial system to dispose of every case arising out of large-scale violence. The police and military, lacking real intelligence or familiarity with the territory, jailed thousands without obvious cause, and without labouring to find one. Courts, even special tribunals, were unable to work through the cases at a reasonable speed. Pleas for amnesty inevitably arose in circumstances in which the members of the public believed that people were being detained unfairly for protracted periods. Political considerations, therefore, determined the futures of those who found themselves in jail.
Intimately tied to these issues was the question of Hindu-Muslim balance in the services. The well-known rivalry between Patel and Nehru was crucial in this respect, as Patel often ran the States Ministry without as much consultation with Nehru’s cabinet as the prime minister would have preferred.77 Before the invasion, Nehru had presided over a meeting in which it was decided that, in order to be generous to the Nizam and to create a positive impression on the other princely states, the military regime ought to change as little as possible in Hyderabad.
Dramatic administrative and policy changes in the territory were to wait for a democratically elected government.78 At other levels of administration, however, divergent ideas took hold. The new authorities in Hyderabad attempted to adjust the ethnic balance in the executive, police and administrative services, where Muslims predominated. To this end, they dismissed over 100 officers, from the Chief Secretary to low-level police personnel. 79 They also detained many of those local officers who were suspected of participating in the violence which accompanied the police action. In addition, they attempted to reduce the number of Muslims working in the civil service or sitting as judges through forced retirement, or transfer from the state. They adopted a policy of not hiring new Muslims in the services. The civilian administration under Vellodi continued this policy. And the government introduced in June 1950 under a scheme of diarchy had similar ideas.
To replace those dismissed, they drafted in junior officers from Bombay, CP and Madras. This created greater difficulties, however, as many of the new officers were not only inexperienced, but were also unable to speak the languages of the people under their jurisdiction, and were unfamiliar with local conditions. This left the administration in general, and the criminal justice system in particular, unable to function efficiently or effectively. The prime minister objected to these schemes on the grounds that they were both inspired by ‘communal’ chauvinism, and were impractical because they brought in incompetent outsiders.83 Nehru, along with many Hyderabadis, called for qualified Hyderabad residents to fill vacant posts. However, the people taking the reins of power in Hyderabad were able to circumvent these orders by falsifying residency documents. Thus, the answers that were found to the question of the ethnic composition of the services were neither similar, nor co-ordinated. It is clear that the new Indian government in Delhi, like its British predecessor, had to contend with competing visions of the state. These visions were not identical to those present before 1947, but they were a mark of the continued inability of the Centre to elicit discipline and obedience
from the individuals it employed.

The Congress Party in Hyderabad

The final question facing the new authorities in Hyderabad was what the role of the Congress Party in the state ought to be. Initially, the answer seemed relatively
straightforward to the government in Delhi. Congressmen at the head of the Government
of India wished the Hyderabad State Congress Party to guide the future of the state. To some extent this decision can be explained by the supposed ideological affinity between the local and the national party. Technically, the Hyderabad State Congress had not been part of the all-India party because affiliations with outside organisations had been banned under the Nizam. Hyderabad’s Swami Ramananda Tirtha, however, had participated in the non-cooperation movement in Sholapur, and later made frequent visits to Gandhi. Tirtha often consulted him on matters of policy, though the two did not always agree.85 In addition, the all-India party had contributed to the Congress satyagraha in the state in 1938.
Moreover, the Hyderabad State Congress was also one of the few political organisations
not confined to a single linguistic group, and which attempted to span the entire state. It would be easier to work with a single organisation rather than with the several linguistic parties.
At the time, however, the Hyderabad State Congress had been in existence for little more than a decade, and had operated as no more than a token institution before
1946. It suffered from organisational shallowness and internal divisions.87 If it were to take power successfully, the Hyderabad State Congress Party would need all the help it could get from the national party. To this end, when they took over the governance of the state, the Indian authorities ordered the release of all Congressmen who had landed in Hyderabad’s jails during their campaign of satyagraha and sabotage before the police action. Before the release, there was some debate as to whether those who had committed crimes of violence should be freed. In the event, Congressmen accused of violent crimes were let out, while communists were kept in jail, whether their crimes involved violence or not.Under these orders, the Government of India released 1,222 out of 1,736 detenus, and 7,893 out of 9,218 political prisoners.
The situation was far more fluid than had been anticipated, however. As the military and police attempted to restore order by arranging prosecutions against those who had partaken in the violence, many Congressmen ended up back in jail. The Military Governor reported that one faction in the party ‘has given information against the members of the other groups for having been concerned in the commission of atrocities after police action’.90 It became clear that the fissures within the Hyderabad State Congress would not be easy to repair. Nehru met with Congressmen in the state to persuade them to bury their differences in the interests of their country.91 V.P. Menon and Sardar Patel repeatedly pressed the divergent blocs in the party to adopt a ‘united approach’, but their ‘bickering’ and ‘mud flinging’ continued unabated.92 Thus, though the Government of India had originally intended to establish a constituent assembly in Hyderabad and to transfer power to a civilian government composed of Hyderabadis, within a few months of the police action, both objectives were soon shelved. The government in Delhi refused
to hand power to democratically elected representatives while the Hyderabad State Congress remained in ideological and organisational disarray.93 It therefore orchestrated a more gradual transfer of power, and did not sanction state-wide elections until 1952.
If the state comprises not only policy but also institutions and individuals, it is difficult to draw a clear and simple picture of the Indian state during the first months after the police action because these three levels seem to be pulling in different directions. Policy coming from the Government of India level was clearly concerned to appear even-handed in its punishment of participants in the violence which surrounded the deposal of the Nizam’s regime. Nehru, at least, was also keen to avoid making drastic changes to state institutions. But as they took control of Hyderabad, the new Indian government found itself with poor institutions and independently-minded local officers. As a result, the composition of the administration in Hyderabad was changed significantly, and Muslims tended to be disenfranchised during this period. The nature of politics in a democratic state also affected policy, for the Centre’s decisions were designed to improve the stature of the Congress party, and to appeal to certain members of the electorate. However, there were others who were not so easily pleased, and it is to the communists that we now turn.

The Communist Insurgency and the Making of the New State

When they arrived in Hyderabad, the Indian military found that the communists had not only done great damage to the structures of government in the Telangana region, but they had also introduced reforms on an impressive scale. The government, therefore, both fought the communists and learned from them. Or rather, they fought them first, and then they learned from them. Their various encounters with the communists affected the future of India as a whole in many ways. This section will highlight two. First, some of the oppressive measures used against the movement came to be incorporated within the new nation’s constitution. Second, the development work of the communists encouraged the government to adopt its own programme of uplift for the peasantry.
While the main justification the Government of India used as they entered Hyderabad was ending the ‘communal’ violence, they soon found that the problems in the state were intimately related to the communist uprising that was flourishing in the Telangana region of the state, for the violent struggle against the Nizam was centred in Telangana and led by communists. The communists drew adherents from a number of fronts. Amongst the poor peasantry and landless labourers, there was great resentment against the jagirdari system of landholding, which governed 43 per cent of land in the state. This system was infamous for the high rate of forced labour extracted from peasants who held little land, were given paltry access to water and manure, and were subjected to high rates by (often absentee) landlords. Moreover, during World War II, the burden of a compulsory levy fell heavily on the peasants, who were experiencing similar agrarian troubles to those which plagued the rest of India. Rural areas also lacked facilities for medical care and education. These factors were combined with a system in which customary class distinctions were often reinforced with brutal violence to leave a large number of peasants alienated from those who governed them.94 In addition, urban communists and wealthier peasants had initially fought their own battles under the
communist banner, but by 1948, the coalition between poor and middling peasants had fallen apart.
In rural areas the communist cause, led by Ravi Narayan Reddi and organised under the aegis of the Andhra Mahasabha, sought to alleviate the grievances of the poor peasants in the Telangana area.96 Though at the outset they only targeted zamindars and deshmukhs, the police and military were pulled into the conflict at the request of local magnates, and by December 1945, the communists had launched a full-scale agitation against the state. Initially, they assaulted the prestige of government officials, especially the police. They progressed to boycotting local revenue collectors and judicial officials, and then to establishing their own panchayats and courts. Between July and November 1946, encounters between the communists and the Nizam’s forces grew increasingly violent, and in the last two months of that year, the Nizam’s police and military, with the occasional aid of local Razakars, undertook coordinated action against the communists. The Nizam’s forces’ tactics were varied. They cordoned off villages and captured suspected communists en masse, shot into crowds, burnt villages, and engaged in widespread loot in a manner that was described by one Congressman as ‘absolutely indiscriminate and organised’.97 Habeeb Mohammed, the subedar of Warangal, was later tried for crimes which included murder, and the burning of 200 houses in the village of
Gurtur. The taluqdar of Nalgonda, Moazzam Hussain, was said to have ordered the death of 20 ‘innocent Hindus’ after a group of several hundred communists had attacked and killed several dozen Razakars.98 The communists responded with ‘punishment’ against government officials and suspected collaborators. Their measures were said to be more targeted, but equally brutal.99 Accounts of the action taken by both sides were documented by the Government of India,100 by politicians such as Sarojini Naidu’s daughter, Padmaja Naidu,101 and they also appeared in the press.
When it became clear that the communists had not laid down their arms after the Indian Army arrived, the Military Governor adopted a policy of rooting out communists wherever they were found. Rhetoric was found to match. Nehru instructed Chaudhuri that the fighters in Telangana should not be referred to as communists, but as terrorists. The prime minister wrote, ‘too much talk of communists confuses the issue because communists in other countries function differently’. He made a distinction between communists in the Soviet Union and Indonesia, who opposed imperialism, and those fighting the free government of independent India. To add factual support to this discourse, the Government of Hyderabad drew up a pamphlet entitled ‘Communist terrorism in Hyderabad’.

The pamphlet’s message was simple:
the Communist hooligans of Hyderabad have carried forward their campaign of crime to an extent that assures it a prominent place in any anthology of destruction.

Government forces, it was implied, had the right to use force to restore order, and to remove these outlaws from the territory. The means adopted to dislodge the communists were also heavy-handed. By December 1949, the police and military had jailed over 6,000 persons without trial, and yet the ranks of communists seemed to be growing.

Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution and the Situation in Hyderabad

Though these detentions did not have much effect on the communist movement, they did have a profound impact on the shape of the Indian Constitution, which was finalised during this crucial period in the country’s history. As the document was being drawn up by the Constituent Assembly, the sub-committee on Fundamental Rights was given the task of articulating the legal, political and social rights of the new citizens of the Republic of India.106 B.R. Ambedkar drew up a set of rules for arrest and detention which would suit India’s unique needs. After many revisions, the substance of Ambedkar’s final, multi-part article provided for very little protection against long-term detention without trial. It laid down rights for those arrested or detained, but then stated that these rights did not apply to those held under preventive detention laws, which might be passed by the
legislatures.107 Ambedkar justified the text on two grounds. First, India was in great turmoil: refugees, economic crisis, uncertainty over princely states, and the rise of communism throughout the country justified the use of preventive detention. Second, it was not a ‘practical possibility’ to expect the current executive, judicial and administrative system to process and review large numbers of detentions, given the current political situation in the country.108 The infrastructure they had inherited was inadequate for the work at hand. If the constitution were to endow citizens with the right to have their cases reviewed in less than three months, as critics of the clause had suggested, then thousands would have to be released because courts and review boards would fail to meet the deadline.
It would be easy to conclude that these measures signalled the willingness of the Government of India’s new leadership to anchor their power in the country by any means necessary. However, the articles adopted in the constitution must be seen in the context of the recent past in India. The fact that most Congressmen had been detained without trial for several years during the recent war affected the way in which detention was viewed in the country. Imprisonment without trial was seen as a necessary measure in the face of grave danger. However, the inveterate legalism of the leadership of the nationalist movement encouraged them to try to articulate in law the precise terms on which that power could be exercised.
And yet, with knowledge of the weakness of the institutions which they had inherited,
the constitution makers were unwilling to be tied down. The clause was the uneasy result of a compromise between legalism and pragmatism.

Civilian Administration and the Victory of the Generous

Just as the constitution came into force, the political situation in Hyderabad began to take a new direction. In December 1949, the Military Governor’s administration ended, and M.K. Vellodi replaced Major-General Chaudhuri at the head of the new civilian administration in Hyderabad. Vellodi toured the Telangana districts, and found that the authorities stationed in the area had not dealt with the communist cause ‘with any understanding’. He testified that ‘the villagers who had been alternately beaten up by the Military and the Police and the communists had a haunted look’.109 This section examines how the civil administration won the war with a combination of more responsive policing and more aggressive programmes of development.
Though the communists were branded ‘terrorists’ in public, the government quietly learned lessons from them. It was clear that the communists had earned the support of the people because they had tapped into grievances which the Indian government in the state had not begun to address. Assessing the achievements of the communists in the field of social and economic uplift, the Intelligence Bureau’s Deputy Director deemed them ‘positive and in some cases great’.110 The communists had redistributed land and livestock, reduced rates, ended forced labour and increased wages by 100 per cent. They inoculated the population and built public latrines; they encouraged women’s organisations, discouraged sectarian sentiment, and sought to abolish untouchability. ‘Thus,’ concluded the Deputy Director, ‘the Communist regime was one of relief and uplift to the isolated villager and improved his self-respect’.
Members of the government in India were not ignorant of the significant influence of agrarian uplift on the political situation. Indeed, Nehru encouraged the Ministry of States to view the problems of the peasantry in Hyderabad in the context of the ‘great agrarian revolution … taking place over these vast areas of Asia’.
In light of the communist uprisings in Burma, Malaya and Indonesia in 1948, it was obvious to the more discerning members of India’s governing class that the communist movement appealed to those in Telangana who suffered under conditions of socio-economic distress.113 Indeed, soon after the police action, Swami Ramananda Tirtha and his group in the State Congress cautioned Nehru that the use of force against communists would have to be supplemented with agrarian reforms in order to strike at the ‘root cause’ of the movement.
As the state’s first Chief Minister, Vellodi initiated a number of more nuanced military measures designed to disrupt the communist movement. He replaced the Brigadier in charge of the Telangana area, who spoke no Telugu, with Captain Nanjappa of the Indian Civil Service, who acted as Special Commissioner in the region.115 Review committees were constituted to consider the cases of prisoners who were elderly, infirm, or were no threat to security.116 Within a year, over 5,000 detenus were freed.117 Nanjappa substituted the sweeping and heavy-handed operations of the military with small police parties, which worked on the basis of intelligence.118 Home guards and village patrols were organised to assist the police.
In the beginning of 1951, Nanjappa gave secret instructions to start a ‘whispering
campaign’ to let it be known that those who laid down their arms voluntarily would have their cases ‘favourably considered’.
The authorities also began to build or repair infrastructure from roads and wells to dispensaries and schools. They passed a Tenancy Act, which was designed to improve the rights of tenants by capping landholdings, opening the market to cultivators, and protecting tenants from ejection.121 Although land reforms were not implemented in a uniform manner, and they did not go far enough in many areas, the Act went some way to recognising peasant grievances.122 A Tribal Reclamation Scheme was introduced in Warangal, under which two teams of Social Service Officers were constituted to ‘redress grievances and create contentment’ amongst the inhabitants of the area.123 To this end, they travelled through rural areas, and tried to settle any outstanding disputes and alleviate all major difficulties in the lives of the villagers. These officers aimed to see that vacant government land was allotted, tenants’ rights confirmed, disputes with absentee landlords settled, land taken by moneylenders restored and debts reconciled. Having been allotted a lump sum of two lakhs, and an annual budget of 1.38 lakhs, they arranged for the supply of essential commodities such as cloth, kerosene and iron at subsidised prices.124 Police and Revenue officials who visited tribal people distributed
medicines, sold cheap cloth, and handed out free dhotis, sarees, soap, slates and books. As a result, noted the Deputy Central Intelligence officer with a hint of surprise, ‘their cooperation with the forces of law and order in this division is most spontaneous’. They were even helping to capture communists. There are indications in the available documents, however, that these schemes were not without elements of coercion. The hill tribes in the area, the Koyas, Chenchus and Lambadas, were said to have had connections with the communists, who used them as couriers, and their settlements as hideouts.127 In order to disrupt the association between the two, the tribes ‘were uprooted from their villages inside the forests and made to live nearer to human habitation’.128 By February 1951, 7,000 out of 30,000 Koyas in the Warangal area had been settled in villages under this scheme.129 It was widely reported that because the re-located tribes people lacked basic facilities such as drinking water, they and their livestock fell victim to hunger and disease.
Measures for the uplift or simple relocation of tribesmen and of the peasantry, whether forced or voluntary, seemed to have drawn many away from communist influence. As a result, the communists had difficulty securing food, water and ammunition from the population.131 Moreover, the Communist Party of India (CPI) was divided over whether to continue the violent struggle in Telangana, or to participate in the general elections due the following year.132 In Hyderabad, the movement split along the same lines. Raj Bahadur Goud and Maqdoom Mohiuddin, members of the City Communist Party, as well as Ravi Narayan Reddi, a prominent leader of the Andhra Mahasabha, came out of hiding to disassociate themselves from the violent movement. They were promptly arrested.133 After seeking guidance from Moscow and Beijing, the CPI and the Andhra Mahasabha called off the armed struggle in the state in mid-October 1951.134 Top-ranking communists visited the state to support the call for a turn to electioneering. Though the change in policy did not satisfy all members of the movement, it brought about a formal end to the Telangana struggle.135 In 1952, the various parties of the left in the state united to form the People’s Democratic Front to contest the forthcoming general elections. The fight against the communists can be divided into two phases, the first executed by the military, the next orchestrated by the civilian administration. The
military phase of the campaign bore a remarkable resemblance to military action during the British period. Hampered by a dearth of intelligence, and blinkered by the overriding imperative to restore order, their over-bearing acts of oppression and indiscriminate punishments produced either bitter quiescence or unending antagonism in the subject population. The Indian government in Hyderabad came into its own when Vellodi took power at the head of a civilian administration. Vellodi and Nanjappa ‘discovered’ that if they could slake the population’s thirst for basic goods, the government could win their loyalty as well. And, marking a crucial departure from the British period, they found the funds necessary to achieve this end.
This can be seen as part of a larger, global shift both in the nature of governance more generally, and in counter-insurgency tactics in particular. After World War II, the nature of citizenship changed as the responsibility of the state for the social and economic welfare of its population was greatly expanded. At around the same time, the British, too, began combating the communist insurgency in Malaya with measures designed to ameliorate the economic conditions in the countryside.
The leadership of the new Indian nation quickly grasped the notion that if they were to earn and retain the loyalty of the people of India, they would have to fulfil the promises of the nationalist movement and provide uplift for the common people.
If they failed in this task, they risked losing the allegiance of villagers, peasants and labourers to communists, who promised the prosperity that the Congress party could not deliver.

The End of Hyderabad

Hyderabad’s fate in the final account was intimately connected with that of south India as a whole. Since independence, significant sections of the population had urged the Government of India to re-divide the provinces in India along linguistic lines. Hyderabad, situated in the centre of south India and populated by four distinct linguistic groups, was elemental to this vision of India. Indeed, as the existence of Hyderabad kept these groups from being unified with their linguistic brethren, it was seen by some as the ‘centre of gravity of the British Empire in India’.137 Socialists in the new nation detested the feudal conditions extant in the state, and believed that the system could only be abolished by dismembering every element of the Nizam’s regime.138 The disintegration of Hyderabad, in these views, was essential in order to establish real swaraj in India. Though he cautioned against repeating the sins of partition, Nehru conceded that, in principle, if there was ‘strong and widespread’ support for the re-drawing of India’s internal borders, then ‘a democratic government must ultimately submit to it’.139 In Hyderabad, politics had long moved along linguistic lines, and the major players, including the Andhra Mahasabha and the faction of the Congress Party led by Swami Ramananda Tirtha, favoured the break-up of the state.140 The People’s Democratic Front, the socialists, and the Peasants and Workers Party participated in the campaign for the disintegration of the state as well.141 In addition, the incorporation of Hyderabad into the Indian Union had emphasised the importance of local officers who spoke the local language of the population. This realisation, combined with the agitation for linguistic states, tipped the balance against the continued existence of Hyderabad. In 1953, the state of Andhra Pradesh was carved out of Madras. In 1956, the Telugu-speaking regions of Hyderabad, including Telangana, were joined with the new province. And Hyderabad’s Marathi speakers were eventually amalgamated into the new state of Maharashtra, and its Kannada speakers into Karnataka.

Conclusion

In light of the experience of Hyderabad, how can one characterise the state in
independent India? Though this article only concerns Hyderabad, the police, military
and bureaucracy which form the basis of this analysis were drafted into the state from outside, and, though one must be cautious, it is possible to draw conclusions that range beyond the borders of the former princely state. It is clear that while there were some continuities, there were also sharp differences between the colonial and postcolonial state. When the members of the new government took over the institutions left behind by the British, they inherited many of the constraints of the colonial system. Courts were easily overwhelmed by unrest; prisons continued to be used as holding cells, rather than as disciplinary institutions; the police and the military were often clumsy and heavy-handed, especially in the first phase of the occupation; and local officers could not always be relied upon to implement the centre’s policies as directed. The colonial apparatus simply did not provide the stability and coherence which many scholars have presumed.
The new Government of India was able to integrate Hyderabad into the Indian Union because it was innovative. These innovations were inspired as much by pragmatism as by democratic concerns and ideological change. Since the Congress Party was concerned to assert its influence over the voting population, members of the government tended to formulate policies to serve this end. Intimately connected with the democratic imperative was the new socialist ethos, which influenced government policy. Whether inspired by the communists of Telangana, contemporary practices of counter-insurgency, or Nehruvian socialism, the postcolonial state was more directed towards the uplift of Indian villagers. It quickly learned that development programmes could be more effective than coercion in certain circumstances.
Above all, the rulers of independent India were remarkably flexible, particularly during the first few years after 1947. In Delhi and in Hyderabad, members of government were not, as a whole, intractably loyal to any single idea. They were willing to adapt their policies to changing facts on the ground. This means that they did not fight all their battles in the same way: in Hyderabad development was an important element in their fight against communists; in other places, other tactics predominated. In Hyderabad, new styles of governance had to be developed precisely because postcolonial India did not possess the institutional framework necessary to fight communists using the oppressive powers of the colonial police, military and bureaucracy. If later governments were able to secure their tenure by using these institutions, they did so only after significant change. Indeed, the
military changed structurally and doctrinally after 1947,142 and the ranks of the police and bureaucracy expanded remarkably.143 Historians must now turn their attention to these changes, and we must begin to view the Nehruvian era as a time of uncertainty, dynamism, and even contest within the new Indian state.

డిసెంబర్ 1, 2009

Telangana sheds tears ONCE AGAIN as this time its TRS leaders( KCR AND FAMILY) play with its name………………!!!!!!!!!!!

A sad NALGONDAN telangana lover in me says this way,

I doubt if we indians will develop as every one keeps on saying that india will be a super power soon. IN FACT AT ANY TIME .
First of all , i will put up the blame of NOT STRAINING THE BRAIN in the matter of telangana on the EDUCATED AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE OF TELANGANA ( I DON’T MEAN EVERY ONE IS A FOOL , AS MANY ARE GREAT  ANALYZERS OF THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THE STATE AND IN TELANGANA ).

But majority are just having their cranial vaults ( brain chamber) filled with donkeys shit.

I do COMMENT THIS WAY as many people whom i see on internet or in blogs or personally are of the opinion that Telangana should be saperated . all this just due to so called ANYAYAM  to telangana.

YEA ,  i agree ANYAYAM hasa been done , but by whom. by filthy politicians i say.

ok , telangana is educationally backward and ignorant when compared to the rest , ie costal districts and rayalaseema region too(  only a little bit).

during the early years of our state . many jobs were snatched away by the costal district people , this was wrong . NOW JUST THINK HOW DID THIS HAPPEN ?? DID THEY PUSH OUR TELANGANA FELLOWMEN WHILE GOING TO INTERVIEWS OR DID THEY THREATEN  OUR PEOPLE FROM ATTENDING THE INTERVIEWS OR EXAMS. ……

NO…… LET ME EXPLAIN , IF NOT , LET ME GIVE MY OPINION.

 

THOSE WHO CAME WERE ALSO MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE ( FOR JOBS) , BUT BRIBING THEIR LEADERS OR OFFICIALS ,,,,AND MADE IN ILLEGALLY.

AND OUR PEOPLE BEING IGNORANT ABOUT THE NEW SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY ( WHICH WAS UNHEARD OF BEFORE DUE TO THE TYRANNY AND BARBARISM OF NIZAM S RULE.)  WERE NATURALLY BEHIND IN THESE THINGS ( IN  CONTRAST ANDHRANS WERE QUITE ENLIGHTED , THANKS DUE TO BRITISH RULE.  THOUGH WE SUFFERED INDEPENDENCE , THE BRITISH WERE TOLERANT , PRAISED OUR CULTURE , EDUCATED US, AND WERE MORE HUMANITARIAN TO PEOPLE . WHERE AS IN NIZAM RULE , TELUGU WAS IGNORED . COMMON MEN WERE NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL.NO RESEARCH HAD BEEN DONE . INFACT , RELIGIOUS DESCRIMINATION TOWARDS HINDUS , FORCEFUL URDU EDUCATION, INSULTS, REPRESSION, BRUTALITIES OVER US HAD TAKEN ITS TOLL, RESULTING IN DEVELOPMENT OF IGNORANT , UNEDUCATED AND EMOTIONAL AND DEFENSIVE PEOPLE.)

PLEASE DONT READ IT AS I SUPPORT TO BRITSIH OR HATRED TOWARDS NIZAM.

BRITSIH WERE GOOD AT SOME THINGS . AND OFCOURSE THEY DID FOR TAKING THE WEALTH OF OUR COUNTRY .THEY KILLED MANY LEADERS WHO OPPOSED THEM . THEY HAVE TAKEN THE FREEDOM FROM  US .BUT THEY DIDNT INDULGE MORE THAN THAT.

BUT NIZAM THOUGH HE HAS THE SAME SKIN COLOUR AS OURS , TOOK AWAY PEACE AND LIFE IN US.  HE MADE US STRUGGLE FOR OUR SURVIVAL , ETHNICALLY .

So in this context , after independence telanganans kept seeing the malpractises of few andhrans ( not all).

THE MAIN THING COMES NOW AS ,…….WHAT DID OUR ELECTIVES DO , WHEN OUR PEOPLE ARE HARMED AND ANYAYAM WAS DONE…..

MLA SEAT POTHADAA , NYAYAM  ADIGITHE . ITS THEIR DUTY TO RAISE QUESTIONS AND ASK THESE ISSUES.       these people didn’t care a shit to think what and where the fault was .

AND AFTER THE ISSUE RIPED AND RIPED . THE PUBLIC ANGER BURST OUT WHEN SUCH AVAKASAVADA LEADERS LIKE CHENNA DONGA REDDY  MADE USE OF THE ISSUE AND LED TO THE DEATH OF INNOCENT VICTIMS.

AFTER THAT , TELANGANA KI DEVELOPMENT GURINCHI ENDUKU TRY CHEYALEDU . FUNDS ENDUKU THEESUKU RALEDU. WHY DIDNT THEY QUESTION WHEN ANYAYAM WAS DONE.

MAY BE BECAUSE OF RECKLESSNESS OR DUE TO CORRUPTION BUSINESS.

TIME AND AGAIN , TELANGANA ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED ONLY TO USE IT FOR SUSTAINING THEMSELVES AND MIS LED PEOPLE THAT SAPERATE TELANGANA WOULD WORK WONDERS WITH US .

IF THERE ARE NO GOOD DRIVERS IN A BUS. JUST CHANGING THE DRIVER WITH ANOTHER INEXPERIENCED DRIVER WOULD NOT HELP. AS HE BEING NOT EXPERT MAY LEAD THE BUS TO A MISHAP……
the fault is with the POLITICIANS . and PEOPLE WHO DONT USE THEIR BRAINS ank keep on repeating the same thing that anyayam had been done and saperate telangaana would help us. these are just words said in emotional out burst but wouldnt help in any way.

the case of pakistan is a perfect example . without any ideology fighting just on emotionally would damage our reputation itself.
These politicians are MORE CUNNING THAN JACKALS, MORE POISONOUS THAN THE VENOMOUS SNAKES.
Here i mention Mr KCR  as he is saying that he would do fast unto death if Telangana is not given .

I have few questions which i feel important in terms of MY TELANGANA S FATE AND FUTURE.these things should be sought by the educated ones especially.no one does talk like him.

1]why does KCR say that many lands in telangana were aquired by andhra or other people , and why didnt he raise this issue when he was in TELUGU DESAM

2]  why didnt he raise his voice when they were captured by the other people then?
why is he saying they have captured now.

3]  KCR says that he is doing fast unto death 10 days in advance?doesnt he want to buy time for some arrangements ?

4]  why does he mention of violence now and then if demands are not met?

5]  what will he do if theres back lash upon us if and only if we are first ones to perpetuate violence?

6]  are you sure that he is going to get telangana for us? do you think he is really considered?

7]  and if you think so that what ever be the means and not mattering who so ever fights for it (like KCR)? WHO WILL BEAR RESPONSIBILITY IF THERES A CASUALITY IN YOUR FAMILY OR SOME OTHER INNOCENTS?

8]  WILL the others who sufferred sit calm after the violence against them?what will happen to telangana people living in their areas like students in srichaitanya , narayana colleges etc? will they leave us?

9]  isnt it the politivians and other union and others to sit calm and not responding when there was ANYAYAM to the telangana students and job seekers in groups exams when ANYAYAM is done by some politicians of andhra region when they helped the nonlocals get jobs by taking bribes etc? why didnt they respond then? where was the love? why didnt unions ask then? isnt it wrong that they and some times you let the wrong happen infront of them and yourselves?

10]  why didnt KCR  fight in Delhi, after he was sent to Delhi as MP of lok sabha ? what did he do to saperate telangana and if not that for the development of the region atleast?
why didnt he say that many people like chandrababu naidu and late YSR had occupid lands when he was given union cabinet minister post for mines ?
did he and any MP care to raise this issue LOKSABHA SESSIONS ?
did he ever atttend the parliament ?
why did he say telangana will come in 6 months , nine months and 1 1/2 years and why he says LATE YSR was the only hurdle , now he being not there what happened?
why does he want to raise these things only after he lost the elections badly and why does he want to do now itself after abstaining from GHMC  elections?

ALSO PLEASE SEE THAT
If kcr really want to do fast unto death in Gandhian Manner ,why does he select a date well before and announce it . isnt it to buy time to make some arrangements for notorious activities.if he has that much love for this land why does he say of extreme steps like violence and so on?

If he is really interested in Telangana issue , why did he say that Telangana is going to come after 6 months 9 months and 1 1/2 years and why didnt he raise issues in the parliament house?and why did he blame YSR that he is only the hurdle in between.

and one final thing , look at the TRS party organisation . is there any order in that party.
except for the family members whom do you see in higher posts ?
in elections , what was the way in which tickets were given ? isnt it given for money only, its a public secret….and look at the fate after the elections , didnt many MLA S and MP s go away from the party and how vulgarly they criticized him. that he is fraudster no. 1.
look at yesteryears newspapers for the happenings after the elections were over.
after elections why did KCR put all the candidates in TELANGANA BHAVAN before results.
why was he afraid of candidates leaving him if they are really a UDYAMA PARTY and the candidates really fight for TELANGANA .

EVEN AFTER THIS DONT YOU THINK THAT THESE KIND OF PEOPLE BE PUT AWAY FROM SOCIETY.
ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR THE CAUSE OF TELANGANA OR ITS DEVELOPMENT OR JUST TRYING TO GAIN BACK AFTER SETBACKS?

DO YOU THINK TELANGANA WILL DEVELOP IF  PEOPLE LIKE THESE BRING TELANGANA IF SUPPOSED ?

AND IF TELANGANA HAS COME ,  THE PEOPLE THOSE WHO HAVE SETTLED HERE WOULDNT GO AND THE COMPITITION WOULD BE THE SAME? IF YOU THINK TO SEND THEM THROUGH FORCE , WILL THEY BE SILENT AND WOULDNT THAT SPARK HUGE VIOLENCE IF THEY ARE HURT AND SO ON?

IN HISTORY ,

AFTER POLICE ACTION IN NIZAM STATE THEN IN 1948 , WHEN THE INDIAN ARMY ATTACKED NIZAMS FORCES AND RAZAKARS BECAUSE OF THE NIZAMS IDEAS OF TERRORIZING THE NON MUSLIM PEOPLE BY KILLING AND TORTURE AND FEAR TO CONVERT ALL NON MUSLIMS OR TO KILL THEM ALL, DID SUCCEED????
INFACT AFTER HIS FALL , THERE WAS SEVERE BACKLASH KILLING SOME 2 LAKH MUSLIMS IN NIZAM STATE ( PARTICULARY IN MARATHI SPEAKING AND SOME OTHERS IN ERSTWHILE NIZAM STATE?

AFTER THE SOVIETS OCCUPIED BERLIN IN WW2, GERMANY SURRENDERED AND IMMEDIATELY THERE WAS 3 DAYS FREEDAYS DECLARED FOR RUSSIAN SOLDIERS.
DURING THESE 3 DAYS BERLIN WAS LET LOOSE FOR RUSSIANS, THEY RAPED 4 LAKH GERMAN WOMEN IN THESE DAYS INCLUDING CHILDREN TO OLDER ONES?
MANY DID SUICIDE FOR SHAME .

JAPAN WAS HUMILIATED BY ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF TWO CITIES FOR STARTING THE WAR AGAINST AMERICA AND  FOR THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY THEM?

IN SRILANKA , THE NATIVES INSULTED TAMILS AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS  A FEROCIOUS CIVIL WAR BY LTTEAND SRILANKA KILLING AND DISPLACING MANY PEOPLE

I WONDER IF MANY OF OUR TELANGANA EDUCATED EVEN IN USA AND AUSTRALIA HAVE A LITTLE BRAIN OR NOT?WE BLACKS ARE POLLUTING THE AIR THERE AND STEALING AWAY THE JOBS THAT THEY ACTUALLY DESERVE?WHY DO INDIANS OPPOSE WHEN THERE ARE ATTACKS ON THEM?
IF THIS IS RIGHT THEN WHATS HERE ALSO IS RIGHT///..

AND ONE LAST THING IF PEOPLE LIKE KCR  IS DOING STRIKE FOR TELANGANA UNTO DEATH.
THEN TOMMOROW IF SOME ADVANI SITS FOR FAST UNTO DEATH FOR RAMA TEMPLE AT BABRI MASJID SITE, IMAGINE WHAT WOULD BE THE FATE OF THE COUNTRY THEN..
IF SOME OTHER FOR SAPERATE SIKH COUNTRY AND SOME TAMIL AND BODO AND ULFA COUNTRY?
WHAT WOULD BE THE FATE/?

WHAT HAS HAPPENNED TILL NOW IS PAST. IF TELANGANA IS/WAS TO BE FORMED IT SHOULD HAD BEEN IN 1969 ONLY, WHEN CHENNA REDDY AND HIS TELANGANA PRAJA SAMITHI HAD CHEATED AND BACKSTABBED THE TELANGANA STATE ISSUE AND ACCEPTED THE INDIRA ”??GANDHI??” AND JOINED CONGRESS PARTY FOR CM POST , THERBY KILLING TELANGANA HOPE AND THE MATYRDOM OF THE STUDENTS AND SPOILED LIVES OF MANY PEOPLE.

PLEASE GIVE WORK TO YOUR BRAINS BEFORE UTTERING A WORD FOR KCR SUPPORTERS

AND FOR TELANGANA PATRIOTS THE NEED OF THE HOUR IS HOW TO BRING ENLIGHTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FACES OF TELANGANA PEOPLE AND COUNTRY SIDE…..

YOURS

NALGONDA TELANGANA LOVER.
TELUGU STATE LOVER
INDIAN LAND LOVER…..

వర్డ్‌ప్రెస్.కామ్‌లో బ్లాగండి.