Why Telangana state should be formed?

1. Creation of a new state might lead to similar demands elsewhere and lead to ‘Balkanization’ of India.
2. Telangana is a land-locked and economically unviable state.
3. Hyderabad’s economy will suffer if it goes to such a state.
4. Unnecessary paperwork and overhead will be involved in creating and maintaining a new state.
5. It divides the Telugu speaking people and areas.

However, having assessed the arguments of the Anti-Telangana forces, it seems to me that the main reason is only the last – that this divides the Telugu speaking regions. It goes against the ‘linguistic states’ philosophy that India followed originally. I for one, believe that a separate Telangana state MUST be carved out of AP! Here’s why:

1. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people from the Telangana region want a separate state. This has been the case for a few decades now, and has been reflected in the democratic choices those people have made. With this being the genuine wish of the majority, democratic ethos requires that their wish be respected within the constitution of India and it is only fair to grant them statehood. This applies to many other ‘genuine burning demands of the people’ elsewhere, especially Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Gorkhaland in West Bengal and Jammu and Ladakh in J&K. This is NOT ‘Balkanization’ of India as some argue, since, the people of Telangana are patriotic Indians in the end. They are not demanding a separate nationhood! What happened in the Balkans is a totally different story, where a nation broke down into multiple nations. Here, it will simply be a story of a nation federating itself further for the good.

2. By carving out a separate state out from a ’single language’ state, the fundamental basis for ‘linguistic chauvinism/regionalism’ will be defeated, and this will send out a strong signal to every other ‘linguistic’ state. Linguistic chauvinism has always been one of India’s banes, and this act could very well be a ground-breaking precedent to defeating that evil. We have seen a similar situation before in the sub-continent. Pakistan was carved out of India, arguing that different religions means different nations. But, by helping to carve out a Bengali-speaking Bangladesh out of it, India defeated the idea of religious nationalism. This applies not just to AP, but also Marathi-speaking Maharashtra.

3. India has created several so-called ‘unviable’ states before – the north-eastern states, for example. The problem is not the economic unviability as of the present, it is whether it is possible to make it viable in the future. Given Telangana’s cultural and tourist potential, mineral wealth, etc, it is fairly clear that a viable state economy is possible. So this argument doesn’t hold much water.

4. Regarding the administrative overhead, one more state is no big deal for India. The United States, for example, has 50 states even though their population is only one-third of India’s! The European Union is also similar. The Russian Federation is also a nice example of a large (the largest!) country being managed through multiple autonomous units. Anyways, AP as of now is too large for any government to run effectively. By ’shedding-off’ Telangana, the new AP (coast + Rayalseema) can be a better administered state!

5. As far as Hyderabad is concerned, I agree it would be too expensive a loss economically for AP. Hence, I think it might be better to make it a Union Territory, and the shared capital of AP and the new Telangana, much like how Chandigarh is shared by Punjab and Haryana. The ‘economic spoils’ of Hyderabad can be shared by the two states. But this is easier said than done. Hyderabad is essentially ’surrounded’ by Telangana (Rangareddy, Mahbubnagar and Nalgonda districts), and it will be tricky to implement such a solution.

6. Some people argue from a sentimental perspective about the ‘unity of Telugu-speaking people’. But Telangana would only be made a separate state, not a separate country! And as per India’s constitution, all states are equal and every Indian has a right to work/settle in any state. So this is no big deal either. Things are far worse for various other people elsewhere in the world. E.g, the Kurdish people are split between Iraq, Turkey and Iran, and don’t have a unified nation to call their own!

Overall, I think India has too many ‘elephantine’ states, which are run very inefficiently. It might be wiser to split them up into smaller, more manageable, but viable states. But, this should be the case only where there is a real demand, and/or where it makes sense. E.g, UP continues to be a ‘black-hole’ state of India, and should seriously be split into two or three smaller states. Maharashtra, on the other hand, is a peculiar case. Even though it is India’s richest state, the fact that statehood sentiments exist in Vidarbha only shows that the state government seems to have focused too much on Mumbai, Pune and the coast.

Hence, overall, I feel it is only wise to carve out a separate state of Telangana out of AP. But then again, as with most things in India, the decision ultimately is driven by political considerations, not logical/practical ones, even though a reputed former judge has been appointed to look into it!

Related posts:

1. If PM decides, T state likely by year end – Advani
2. Few state-run buses return on Telangana roads
3. TRS for shared capital Of Hyderabad for limited time
4. Telangana, to separate or not to separate?
5. Azad urged not to take hasty decision on Telangana
6. Telangana could lead to further division of state – SA politicians
7. T state, inevitable and desirable – Kishan Reddy
8. Telangana state to be formed in May 2011?
9. Telangana State and Muslims
10. Chorlette Telangana Association formed