Response to the Responses

There has been a lot of interest in the pieces that I posted, especially ‘In Praise of T Agitation’, and ‘Q&A With Parakala Prabhakar’ in Business Standard. When the responses started coming in, I thought that it would be better to write a general response at one go by bunching together the various issues raised, rather than respond to them one by one as they come in.

I would like to thank everyone who took time to read the posts and to all those who spared their valuable time to compose their responses. There were both bouquets and brickbats. It is quite pleasing that many eminent people thought it fit to write. Some wrote as comments in my site itself, some chose to respond by mail, and some others wrote their posts in facebook as well as twitter. Some friends called me up to let me know what they thought of the posts.

I am beholden to all of them.

Some of the responses were vehemently critical. Some of them were full of praise. Some of them were sarcastic. Some chose to be very caustic. Some others tried to run me down rather than engaging with my arguments. Some attacked me personally. A few of them tried to attribute motives to me.

It was quite nice reading all of them. Well, what do you expect to get when you write on something which is agitating the minds of many people and the atmosphere is so very charged. But I must tell you, I am quite used to this kind of situation; quite used to all the three – dooshana bhooshana tiraskaram. I would have been surprised if my views did not evoke strong and adverse responses. That would have meant that they did not have any value.  But I would have been disturbed if they did not evoke any favourable responses. Fortunately, there were many favourable responses too.

After reading and rereading all the comments, my commitment to the cause of Visalandhra is more vigorous today. Interestingly, it is not the favourable ones than strengthened my conviction that my argument for a united Andhra Pradesh is unassailable. It is the bunch of adverse comments that did the job. The adverse comments are so shallow and full of insinuations and devoid of logic that they failed to challenge even one element of the string of arguments that I put forward in favour of a united state. When I found well-meaning people indulging in personalised and intemperate comments, I quickly realised that they had no case and their plot was lost. Otherwise why will fairly educated and respectable adults talk about a serious matter in a sarcastic and derogatory fashion and repeat the same old allegations and falsehoods that were completely shot down elsewhere as well as in my writings?

After reading all these comments, today I am more convinced than ever that there is little to say in a serious way in favour of the division of the state.  I did not come across even a single fact or an argument that made me review or rethink any of the arguments I had advanced. There is no case to divide the state if you look at the evidence on Telengana’s economic performance; there is no case if you look at the language angle; and there is no case if you examine the so called cultural argument; and absolutely no room for argument if you look at the history of Telugu people. After all these arguments are exposed to be spurious, it finally boiled down to ‘I want it because I have been saying I want it.’ Well-meaning people are saying that they wanted division because they wanted division. Who can argue with them?  They say that anybody who wants the state to stay united is saying so because they want to exploit Telangana!!!

This is an old trick. When you don’t have a rational argument to deal with an argument, you start insinuation. You cast aspersions on the person who presents the argument. You question the bona fides of the person. You don’t engage with the argument. You try to engage with the person. Isn’t that a sure sign of a lost argument?

Now let me say something about some of the comments that were made on my posts.

First of all, I would like to make it clear that I do not want this debate to be a personalised one. I am not interested in debating about individuals, their personalities, and their worthiness or otherwise. My idea of a debate is simple: I prefer to respond to the issue raised by a person. Not respond to the individual. I do not like a debate which falls back on ‘Who are you to say?’ ‘Who is he to say?’  ‘What are you?’  ‘Where are you from?’ ‘What were you doing till yesterday?’ You are familiar with the drift I am talking about. I would like to keep the individual aside and deal with the argument. With the idea. With the proposition. And with the formulation. In other words, my concern is with issues. Only issues.

I have to say this because some of the respondents wanted to take this to personal level. Some chose to point out the fact that while I was working for the unity of Andhra Pradesh, my wife supported the demand for Telangana state. The glee in the tone of their comment is too obvious to go unnoticed. They evidently felt that they had scored a point against me.

These people obviously feel that husbands should be able to force their wives to toe their line and assert their masculine authority over them. Their point is if I can’t force my own wife to fall in line, what right have I got to tell others about the merits of my position. I don’t want to go into the details of what this means (‘What a wimp you are if you can’t shut your wife up in the kitchen and make her say yes to whatever you say?’ is just one implication of this); nor do I want to speculate on what it tells about the people who make such comments. Evidently these people are alien to the idea of two individuals having a relationship of mutual respect notwithstanding their disagreement on a particular issue. We can leave comments from this class of people alone and let them have their small thrills in life.

But I can’t resist telling you something that shocked me recently. When I was in Delhi for the Visalandhra Mahasabha’s Media Workshop and Exhibition, a girl who was with a group of people that stood outside the hall to register its protest shouted at me:  ‘first make sure your wife agrees with you’. I was shocked to learn that she was a student from Jawaharlal Nehru University.  A girl student from JNU wanted a husband to make sure that his wife toed his line! Either something is wrong with the girl student or with the University. Much more interesting is that this group of protesters was led by a ‘revolutionary’ lady with ‘akka’ as a suffix to her name.

Since I referred to Delhi Workshop, I must mention one more incident. On the second day of the workshop and while I was still in Delhi, some persons calling themselves Advocates JAC attacked my house in Hyderabad. They shouted slogans and threw stones. My mother who is eighty year old and my daughter were at home. They were bold and they did not panic.

Who attacks houses and throws stones? Only those who have no argument. Who are intolerant. Who do not want anybody to say anything that they don’t like. And above all those who are afraid that the structure of their argument is so fragile that a it will fall apart and smashed to pieces even if a single voice contests it; even if one individual questions it; even if one organization challenges it.

That day I realised that behind the insinuations, allegations, shrill voices, attacks and stone-throwing, and filthy abuse that we see around these days, there is a weak argument. The argument becomes louder and shrill because it is weak. It has violence as its companion and aide-de-camp because it is not confident about it strength and merit. It does not tolerate any other opinion because it feels threatened. It does not face facts because it fears a collapse.

This incident also strengthened my conviction that my argument was potent enough to make its adversaries panic. It made me confident that they were incapable of challenging it with a counter argument. It became clear to me that if I have to change my position it will not be because of a convincing counter argument, but because of threats of physical and verbal assault.

Some people questioned the authenticity of the data that was the basis of my argument. It was argued that the data were cooked up by the Coastal and Rayalaseema people who were exploiting Telangana. Well, I see no argument here worth a comment. Data don’t become ‘cooked up’ simply because one does not like them. If they really felt so, such people should have come up with an entire body of alternative data. Mere allegations, chest-beating, and insinuations don’t wash. One other person cited some categorization by the Planning Commission in an effort to lend some sanctity to the argument about backwardness of Telangana. I can only say that the person needs some training and help in understanding and interpreting economic data. Any student of economics can tell you that the Planning Commission’s categorization that was cited was in a completely different context and the ‘backwardness argument’ on the basis of that categorization does not stand up to even a rudimentary scrutiny.

Another comment was regarding the position taken by the now wound-up Praja Rajyam Party on Telangana agitation and my stand those days. Everybody in PRP and outside knew my strong views in favour of an integrated Andhra Pradesh. I along with many in the PRP continuously and strongly argued for adopting an integrationist stand. The leadership’s already confused position on the issue became even more confused. And the outcome was the vague ‘Samajika Telangana’ which was neither here nor there. My position then was for integration; and it is for integration today.

One person took the pains to bring out a hyperlink to a report in The Hindu newspaper which quoted me on the issue. I want that person to go back to the report and read it once again. He will find that everywhere I was quoted as saying “we” (meaning the Party) and not “I” (meaning Parakala Prabhakar). As a spokesperson of the party it was my duty to summarize and faithfully state the deliberations and decisions of the Party forums. I am not familiar with the practice of a spokesperson or a functionary saying, “My party’s stand is this but my personal stand is this.” But within the Party forums my position was absolutely clear to everyone. I was never ambivalent on this issue. The person was clever to dig the report out. I only wish that he could have used the same wisdom to read it carefully and understand it. Had he done so the nuance would not have escaped his scholarly attention.

In response to the electoral performance of Telangana Rashtra Samiti and other parties I referred to in my interview to Business Standard, somebody asked me if had deliberately overlooked the performance of Telangana Praja Samithi. No, I did not. I chose to refer only to the recent past. If one wants to bring in TPS saga also into the discourse, one has to explain why there was nothing between the TPS merger with Congress and till the latest spurt of the agitation. And how the leaders of the erstwhile TPS served in important positions in the united Andhra Pradesh also needs to be explained. The same person perhaps felt that BJP’s performance after ‘one vote – two states’ slogan was spectacular, while I described it as ‘pathetic’. I still feel that it was pathetic. If it had swept the polls or even came anywhere near to it in the region, perhaps I would have given some weight to the comment. For this commentator, when Devender Goud and Indra Reddy floundered, it was their credibility deficit and not the weakness of the cause. And when somebody wins handsomely or even scrapes through, it was the strength of the aspiration, but not as a result of the quirk of electoral fortunes. He is obviously used to only peculiar rules of engagement in an argument: Heads I win, Tails you lose!

Some tried to strip me of a title which I never possessed. They said that I was not an intellectual. Well, I never laid claim to the coveted title of ‘intellectual’. I am a normal citizen, a simple Telugu person, born into a politically and socially conscious family. I am fortunate to have gone to some reasonably good schools, colleges and universities. That’s all. No more. I do not suffer from the delusions that I am an intellectual.

But I speak my mind out. Candidly. Fearlessly. I take positions after a careful sifting of evidence. But I am also constantly on the lookout for any fact or insight that would call for a rethink or a review of my position. On this issue, I must tell you, I have not come across even a shred of evidence to support the demand for dividing the state. I must tell you that I do not consider anyone who disagrees with me as my enemy or a traitor or an unworthy person or a person with ulterior motives. I don’t level charges or attribute mala fide intentions to anybody who takes a position at variance with the position that I take.

I am open for a debate. Anywhere. Anytime. I am not the kind of person who can be cowed down by sarcasm. Nobody can browbeat me. None can intimidate me. Let nobody labour under the illusion that they can pass some caustic remarks and make some cheap personal comments to prevent me from championing the Visalandhra cause and from challenging the falsehoods propagated by the separatists. I am aware that only those who have no argument resort to this kind of innuendo. Innuendo makes a lot of noise. But it cannot be a substitute for an argument.

Therefore, if somebody is prepared to leave this clutter behind and ready for a genuine and honest debate, I am ready. And Visalanddhra Mahasabha is ready.

Let me add this here: I don’t buy the argument that ‘those who demand separate Telangana state are the only ones who are the well-wishers of Telangana.’ I have seen this trick. I don’t fall into the trap. I believe that all those who support the separate Telangana state are not necessarily the well-wishers of Telangana. And all those who are in favour of Visalandhra are not against the interests of Telangana. In fact those who are championing the cause of Visalandhra are the real well-wishers of Telangana. And Coastal region. And Rayalaseema. They are the well-wishers of all Telugu people.

Lakhs and lakhs of people from all the regions of Andhra Pradesh, all the districts of Andhra Pradesh, and all the villages of Andhra Pradesh want the State to stay united.

I have seen through the cynical efforts to portray the current situation as a conflict between ‘Telangana people’ on the one side and the rest of the State on the other.

I will lay bare the trickery of this diabolical game and expose the cynical sleight of hand behind it.

Watch this space.

28 Responses to “Response to the Responses”

  1. August 4, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    Dr. Prabhakar, let me congratulate you for your tight rope walking. The Clintonesque “we” vs. “I” should aern you plenty of kudos from your many admirers.

    You refer to “Another comment was regarding the position taken by the now wound-up Praja Rajyam Party on Telangana agitation and my stand those days” but omit your other previous party BJP. Did you join the party before or after their resolution in favor of Telangana?

    • August 4, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

      Sudheer garu,
      I am really flattered by your interest in me and my writings.
      Thanks.
      You made sure that I didn’t miss the tone of you comment!
      I am also puzzled by your undying curiosity about me as an individual rather than about the arguments that I advanced.
      You will surely get a response to your query in course of time. I assure you I won’t disappoint somebody like you who takes a lot of interest in me.
      At the same time I wish somebody like you engages with my positions, arguments and formulations. Probably it is more worthwhile for people of your scholarship, knowledge and curiosity.
      If your mission is to establish that Parakala Prabhakar is a foolish, unworthy, opportunistic, devilish, naive, and an idiotic individual, then you are probably wasting your time. I won’t claim that I am none of those. And I am sure neither would you about yourself. Your scholarship will be well deployed if you engage with ideas rather than with inconsequential individuals like me.
      Please watch this space – I am sure, you will do – for an answer to your query as well as any other queries that may come up from others in the coming days.
      I will stick to my practice of giving one detailed and comprehensive reply.
      Best wishes.

      • August 4, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

        I am surprised by the personality centric approach being adopted by the votaries of unity.

        In my case, this is not the intention. To amplify, I am not interested in why this or that individual discovered the virtue of unity overnight but why a lot of people suddenly got wise at one go (“communication manufactures perceptions”)

        I hope you will publish a post on why you would like to keep AP united. What I have seen so far (I could be wrong) is why you believe the opposite side has manipulated public opinion. This will help engage on ideas rather than allegations of spin & extortion and Cassandra predictions.

        • August 4, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

          >> why a lot of people suddenly got wise at one go

          It is not ppl getting wise as u assumed Mr. Sudheer. It is about the ppl’s reaction for an unwise decision by the union govt. The people of coastal and seema had a belief that the state will not get bifurcated just because of one hungry politician is on fast. And historically there are enough evidences to strengthen their belief. But once when they saw a threat to that belief they reacted to it strongly. Thus there is no case/need of manufacturing a communication unlike the separatist’s movement where they have to show *some* reasons, and benefits to convince the people.

          >> I hope you will publish a post on why you would like to keep AP united.

          How funny? The separatists are failed to answer why the state has to be divided with their hallow arguments and now trying their luck from the other side, asking why not it can be divided?

          The state is already united and can be continue to be united unless some one ‘convince’ there is something wrong in an united state. The policy making seeks answers for ‘why’ rather ‘why not’?

          >> why you believe the opposite side has manipulated public opinion.
          It is not a *belief* as u trying to mislead it Mr. Sudheer.
          It is a ‘conclusion’ based on very facts that how the separatists put falsified arguments to make people engage in their movement… There is a saying in telugu. “రామాయణం అంతా విని రాముడుకి సీత ఏమౌతుందని అడిగాడుట వెనకటికి ఒకడు…

          • August 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

            A fait accompli is a fact, not a justification. The statement “The state is already united” is similar to “Chidambaram already inittiated Telangana process”.

          • August 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

            >> A fait accompli is a fact, not a justification.

            What a wonderful twisting you are trying to give here Mr. Sudheer. But, sorry, u failed. The justification has to be given for division, but not for continuing to be united. All the states followed this principle. Not the otherway. If that is the case, there would be no end for such arguments, like why not rayalaseema. why not tulu nadu, why not manyaseema, why not hyderabad as UT and where will u put an end? why not we let kashmir divide from india?

            >> similar to “Chidambaram already inittiated Telangana process”.
            There is no similarity. I am sure you are good at english.

            FYI, the statement is ‘The process will be initiated’. After that there is no follow-up statement saying ‘has already been initiated’. and infact, it is the opposite. There are further statements (on dec 23 and many a times after) which shows they retreated from the earlier stance. or atleast clear indications that they can’t proceed further.

            btw, the clock on earth has not stopped at Dec 9th.

        • August 20, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

          Please publish a post or a comment on why would like to divide AP without any personally interested or highhanded and derogate remarks but only based on logic, equal distribution of resources and common sense.

  2. August 4, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    Dear Pubs,
    Excellent article. I fully share your views. It is the power hungry politicians and opportunists in the political cesspool who are responsible for the state of things. These people are playing with the lives and careers of the students of Telegana region for personal gains. I am an Indian first and a Telanganite/ Andhrite last. We haven’t learnt anything from the history of fragmentation that led to centuries of slavery. We are heading for it again with the two dime idiotic politicians working for personal gains rather than serving the country. I believe National Integration comes first and Telangana should be the last thing on mind. Bravo!!! Keep up the good work

  3. August 4, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Prabhakar garu,
    Very well-done. You have answered your critics effectively, elegantly and with restraint. If still one doesn’t see reason, it means he does not want to. When emotions take over reason retires!. That is what is happening to day even to well-meaning people these days.

  4. August 5, 2011 at 10:21 am #

    WE ARE WITH YOU SIR..

  5. August 5, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    Simple, Straight, Sincere and most visibly Pragmatic and Balanced. I can see the amount of cognitive effort behind the endeavor. Truly inspirational for one who is interested in personal growth.

  6. August 7, 2011 at 1:43 am #

    Just wanted to say one thing.

    “It is not about how hard you hit. It is about how hard you can get hit. And keep moving forward”. And that’s what truth is all about. Let this blog instigate the truth to come out. Whatever that be. It will be the last thing standing.

  7. August 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    prabhakar gaaru,

    i read your article, good to read.

    my questions on separation of telangana are,

    Q1: STATES ON LINGUISTING BASIS (SRC 1): Very resently we have seen three new states formation. a)Utharanchal b) Chathisgarh c) Jarkhad. they all speak common language. then why not a separate state of Telangana.

    Q2: SENTIMENTS: sentiments of telangalan people (you may say they are influenced) are sayiing they want separate state. voice of a leader represents his/her people. so whatever the leaders are saying is the voice of their people. when 95% leaders of telangana wants separate state why should not we respect it.

    Q3: DEVELOPMENT : leaving hyderabad what is the development in Telangana. Andhra has developed places like, Srikakulam, Vijayanagaram, Vizag, Kakinada, Rajahmundry, Eluru, Bhimavaram, Vijayawada, Machilipatnam, Gutur, Ongole, Kavali, Nellore, Tirupati, Kurnool, Cudapah, Anantapur. More over agriculture being more in godavari basin in andhra than telangana. (pl dont say warangal is famous for rice). Per capita income in andhra region is more than of telangana region. Data shows that.

    Q4: WATER : who is using godavari water more.

    Q5: INVESTMENT: Wide opinion is that because of heavy investment by andhra politicians in and around Hyderabad, they are not allowing division.

    Q6: MINERALS : Inspite of having rich minerals in telangana, no development in the area comparing with andhra. Why the standard of living of telangana people is lower than andhra people. (i am not talking of hyderabad)

    can you educate me in the above to get convinced for visalandhra.

    thanq – dhaveji

  8. August 8, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    prabhakar garu, I endorse to most of your views/replies you presented here except on one thing..When someone asked you to ensure your wife agrees with you, that probably does not mean that you should toe her listen, with your masculine ability. I respect people having individual opinions and should be valued irrespective of class, creed or gender. But the issue here is not having an ‘opinion’, but understanding the facts.
    so, the question is does smt. Nirmala sitaraman subscribe to the allegations of ‘dopidi’? Again, I have of no second opinion that she has to express her party opinion on public fora.. But I am asking about the individual opinion. I am ok if you say, as a spokes person of the party, she should not reveal her individual opinion on public forums and invite troubles.

    But what I feel is, it is the duty of us, the integrationists to explain the “facts” (stress on this word) and ensure the people around us(even who have different opnion) to quote the same in a debate. I have no problem with someone who ‘wants’ telangana but quoting the right data and facts, but the problem is with those who are tampering the data to have a favored conclusions.

    By the way, I request you to come with ‘an open letter’ addressing smt. Sushma Swaraj. I am extremely disappointed with the leader of the party with a difference, of her speech in parliament a couple of days ago, which filled with loads of lies and arrogance (for not respecting a committee which consulted ppl to the widest extent possible and given a report). The sad part is the pain she caused to the people of kosta and seema regions with her perpetuated lies in the speech. she showed the height of opportunistic politics even on a highly emotive issue. They bettered congress a bit here. I have lost all the respect to her and the party.

    • August 10, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

      Satya, I agree your interpretation of the woman student’s question looks more appropriate. In any case, it would have been more befitting if Dr. Prabhakar had not resorted to language like “wimp”, “kitchen” etc. and made vague references to Vimalakka & JNU.

      Having said this, we must remember they are seperate individuals with their own views. Prabhakar can be questioned only about his own stand and that of his organization, not family or friends. I do not see any need for Nirmalaji to articulate her “individual opinion” or for the couple to debate the subject in public.

      I do not however buy the argument thsat a party member (or even the spokesperson) must faithfully parrot the “line”. Based on the intensity of their views, they can request deputing the subject to another spokesperson or clarify their personal opinion on a seperate occassion afterwards. In extreme cases, they can quit the party citing these differences.

  9. August 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    Prabhakar garu,

    EXCELLENT ! you articulated the thoughts of mine using your very skilled usage of English language. Hats off sir. There is not a single line in the article that one can find fault of…and not a single line where one can disagree if one has enough moral and ethical understanding. God speed to you in the cause of – not just united AP, not just for Telugu but for sanity and decency and peace in our society. T separatism fails on all three grounds of sanity, decency and peace.

    Regards,
    KIran

  10. August 11, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Sir, I would like to know your reaction to the obstructing of the recent Jai Andhra closed doors meeting, thank you

    • August 12, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

      Wrong. Nobody has a right to object to a peaceful voicing of an opinion in a democratic society like ours.
      You may not agree with an opinion; but you should not obstruct its expression.

  11. September 20, 2011 at 7:47 am #

    one day or other seperate TELANGANA state will be formed. this protest against TELANGANA would be realised as waste of time then. the cultural difference leaving aside allthe other inequalities can be considered as basis for formation of the state.you see once the state is formed the government comes with a more convincing argument for why that is done.

  12. September 28, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    It seems Mr.Prabhakar, that makes it clear you belong to seemanhdra region. First thing you say there is no economic inequality or ineuality in jobs to people of telangana. just give me two answers. How many graduation colleages are present in Rangareddy district (excluding HYD) and if there is no inequality then for what reason GO 610 was given by GOVT of AP and why its not implemented since 1986?

  13. November 15, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    dear sir,
    followed u’r arguments on various channels.very impressed with u’r research on the statehood.definitely t- agitation is a combination of some well meaning individuals spontaneous and some paid orchestrated lumpen attack oriented,browbeating the opinion of others by hook or crook.
    the cause of unity is supported.

  14. November 30, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    All round good blog post!!!

  15. October 5, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    This calculation is not correct . If its correct in seemndra rallys participated only 10-20 ppl ..mundhu nee wife nuvvu oka mata matladatam nerchukondi

  16. August 18, 2013 at 1:36 am #

    Inta gelichi rachha gelavali.. Hope Mr. PP understand what I mean

  17. August 19, 2013 at 10:16 am #

    Extracts from your article

    Some chose to point out the fact that while I was working for the unity of Andhra Pradesh, my wife supported the demand for Telangana state. The glee in the tone of their comment is too obvious to go unnoticed. They evidently felt that they had scored a point against me.

    These people obviously feel that husbands should be able to force their wives to toe their line and assert their masculine authority over them

    Dr. Prabhakar,

    I like to know
    Who is right on telangana issue? Is it you or your wife?

    May I expect a straight answer?

    • August 20, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

      Tit for tat . Fitting reply given . Congrats!

  18. August 20, 2013 at 9:18 am #

    Prabhakarji,

    Frankly, You can never be an intellectual, Far from that you are a deranged megalomaniac trying to gather cheap publicity with your antics with the visalandhra setup. No wonder PRP booted you out at the first available oppurtunity..You sound and act more a confused clown than a level headed person who can be called an intellectual.
    On behalf of all Telanganites I urge you not to waste your and others time with the crap that you propagate against telanagana.

  19. August 22, 2013 at 3:47 am #

    All I can say at this point is that we were living in harmony for six decades.

    The seperatists try to put forward a logic of “gross injustice” done on allocation of jobs and sharing of waters.I am surprised that a lot of intellctuals too have fallen for this politically motivated propaganda. If there was so much of injustice truly done throughout this period, the elected representatives would have surely come forward highlighting this aspect.

    Then there is this logic of always going back to 1956 when the merger happened and that it has never been successful. what is the metric to measure this success or failure of integration anyways? There has never been a conspiracy as such to form a cult or group to undermine the telangana culture. While isolated incidents are bound to happen everywhere owing to our diversity, these cannot be cited as one of the obvious reasons for failure of integration. More than anything the unified state would not have witnessed peace other than during the agitations of 1969 and 1972.

    The unified state contributes substantially to the GDP of the country. This is a huge compromise one shall have to make for the years to come and for future generations, if both the regions dont end up contributing the same way to the Indian economy. This is bound to happen in the event of a seperation.

    I fail to understand how does seperation make things even. More than anything it will give rise to fanaticism, and will always serve as an excuse to commit hate crimes. This will spring more hatred towards films, literature and poets of the either region. The argument of the seperatists will however be that the culture was never composite.

    Parakala garu, admire you for standing up in doing the right thing. The right thing is always”perspectival”,”. Sadly, all the samaikhyavadis are grouped under an umbrella of words such as either “investors” or “hyderabad greedy”. There is so much that happens between the “haves” and “have nots” arguments during any revolution.

Leave a Reply