Parakala Prabhakar

Although it is ‘Kolaveri Di’ which will go down as the biggest rage of 2011 that captured the nation’s attention, it is the common housewife in the TV commercial for a tea brand who uttered the line that captured the mood of the nation. She said, “Desh Ubhal Raha Hai.”  This one line tells the [...]

There was very vigorous discussion on my recent posts in my blog. Many people chose to comment on them. Some are constructive, and some are, predictably, abusive. Some are substantive and some others are pointless. It is a mixed bag, as usual. One person, currently ‘employed by a reputed MNC’ (in his own description), wrote [...]

This is the trick that keeps the whole thing going: If one argument collapses, they quickly disown it. And say that’s not the argument. If somebody loses an argument, they quickly disown them. And say they are not representative of the ‘movement’. They put up a new argument, or put up an old argument by a new outfit.

That is how the T argument lurches.

It’s a relay run of the lame. But it pretends to be a marathon.

Bapuji’s Nellore meet went off peacefully.
What does this indicate?
It clearly shows that Visalandhra Vaadana is self-confident and secure. It is not afraid of anyone organising a meet to propagate a contrary view. It’s self-confidence is revealed by the fact that staunch integrationists met the visitors and showed their respect. It indicates that the integrationists are not against separatists as individuals but are only against separatism as an idea. They only disagree with the separatists on their vision of the future of Andhra Pradesh. Integrationists have shown that one can disagree without being disrespectful and undemocratic or disruptive.

There was a vigorous debate/discussion on the Telangana issue in a group called Karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com until a few days ago.

I am giving my responses to the rejoinders of Sri Subhash C. Reddy, Ph.D. I am not reproducing the text of his responses because I am not sure if I have the liberty to post it. I suggest to those who are interested to read his posts to access the Group Digests 930, 932, 933, 935, 936 & 937. One post of mine is in response to Sri Subba Rao.
The debate was closed, rather abruptly, by the group moderator.

I am reproducing the text of my responses in the discussion. This is the last post in this Karmayog Discussion.

There was a vigorous debate/discussion on the Telangana issue in a group called Karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com until a few days ago.

I am giving my responses to the rejoinders of Sri Subhash C. Reddy, Ph.D. I am not reproducing the text of his responses because I am not sure if I have the liberty to post it. I suggest to those who are interested to read his posts to access the Group Digests 930, 932, 933, 935, 936 & 937. One post of mine is in response to Sri Subba Rao.
The debate was closed, rather abruptly, by the group moderator.

I am reproducing the text of my responses in the discussion.

This post is in response to Sri Subba Rao’s request for some clarifications.

There was a vigorous debate/discussion on the Telangana issue in a group called Karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com until a few days ago.

I am giving my responses to the rejoinders of Sri Subhash C. Reddy, Ph.D. I am not reproducing the text of his responses because I am not sure if I have the liberty to post it. I suggest to those who are interested to read his posts to access the Group Digests 930, 932, 933, 935, 936 & 937. One post of mine is in response to Sri Subba Rao.
The debate was closed, rather abruptly, by the group moderator.

I am reproducing the text of my responses in the discussion.

There was a vigorous debate/discussion on the Telangana issue in a group called Karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com until a few days ago.

I am giving my responses to the rejoinders of Sri Subhash C. Reddy, Ph.D. I am not reproducing the text of his responses because I am not sure if I have the liberty to post it. I suggest to those who are interested to read his posts to access the Group Digests 930, 932, 933, 935, 936 & 937. One post of mine is in response to Sri Subba Rao.
The debate was closed, rather abruptly, by the group moderator.

I am reproducing the text of my responses in the discussion.

One can love Telangana, be an uncompromising champion of Telangana but still be not in favour of a division of Andhra Pradesh, or a separate Telangana State. We need to show that there is no contradiction between being a champion of Telangana interests and at the same time be a staunch supporter of a United Andhra Pradesh.

If not immediately, surely sooner than later and an appropriate stage this logic needs to be extended to assert that in fact love for Telangana and demand for Separate Telangana State are contradictory.

We need to show that staunch champions of Telangana interests have also been staunch integrationists. In fact, they are staunch integrationists only because they are staunch champions of Telangana interests.

And more importantly, we need to show that all votaries of Separate Telangana State are not necessarily champions of Telangana interests or well-wishers of Telangana people.

In our first-past-the-post electoral system, winner takes all. The result, therefore, only tells us who qualifies to sit in the Assembly. Nothing more, really.

But if one wants to honestly look for the message – the small print, so to speak – one cannot miss the hollowness of the claim that the people of Nizam are solidly behind the demand for separation.

What does the voting pattern show?

It shows that in the Nizam region there are a large number of people who are not in favour of separation.

It shows that significantly large number of common people do not endorse the TRS and T-JAC agenda.

Had the atmosphere been not so intimidating as it is at present, TRS/T-JAC performance would have been much poorer.