Guest Hiten. Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So it seems like we are heading towards splitting off Andhra Pradesh and with the retards in powers in all of our states how many more would go on "hunger strike" to get a different state because their part of the state does not get much needed attention . Our spineless government gives one more signal of their incompetency in resolving social conflict.
cowboysfan Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 my roommate is ecstatic.I think its a big mistake as were the spiltting of other states.I just hope the people in belgaum dont start off their split karnataka crap.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 i want a state for cricket fans......BB will go on fast for that
The Outsider Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 India probably needs another 15 more states before some of these gargantuan states can be ruled properly and effectively. UP itself has a population two thirds the size of the entire United States and is governed as one state. The development index in all things shot up once Uttaranchal was created. UP needs to be cut down in at least 4 more states. Same is the case with AP - another huge state. Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Bihar and the list goes on. With India's population explosion these states have become management nightmares for the rare politician which does want to do some good.
Lurker Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So it seems like we are heading towards splitting off Andhra Pradesh and with the retards in powers in all of our states how many more would go on "hunger strike" to get a different state because their part of the state does not get much needed attention . Our spineless government gives one more signal of their incompetency in resolving social conflict. Didnt surprise me one bit really. A Telugu folk I knew would keep asking me question about Jharkhand & Bihar and how Jhrakhand was doing. For about a year I simply thought of this as a genuine curiousity on his part since I hail from the state(s). Quite recently he bluntly told me it was because of Telengana issue and how it would be better blah blah(and hence his curiousty about Jharkhand post creation/partition). Then pointed out the gults who belonged to "Andhra" and not Telengana. A glorious effer if I ever met one. India probably needs another 15 more states before some of these gargantuan states can be ruled properly and effectively That is good in theory but reality on ground are different. Jharkhand is a case in point which has not exactly set the stage ablaze since it has come on its own. Instead of being one of the richest states(which it should be based on natural resources) it is one of the most corrupt state that is laced with poverty, naxalism and often blind hatred for anything not Adivasi. If you think it is toughest for an honest person to win in politics, think again. It is probably harder for a non-Adivasi to win in Jharkhand. xxx
punjabi_khota Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 India probably needs another 15 more states before some of these gargantuan states can be ruled properly and effectively. UP itself has a population two thirds the size of the entire United States and is governed as one state. The development index in all things shot up once Uttaranchal was created. UP needs to be cut down in at least 4 more states. Same is the case with AP - another huge state. Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Bihar and the list goes on. With India's population explosion these states have become management nightmares for the rare politician which does want to do some good. In b4 india map looks like US with rectangular boundaries of all the internal states :giggle:.
cowboysfan Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 India probably needs another 15 more states before some of these gargantuan states can be ruled properly and effectively. UP itself has a population two thirds the size of the entire United States and is governed as one state. The development index in all things shot up once Uttaranchal was created. UP needs to be cut down in at least 4 more states. Same is the case with AP - another huge state. Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Bihar and the list goes on. With India's population explosion these states have become management nightmares for the rare politician which does want to do some good. you are wrong.these smaller states will become fiefdoms for whoever is ruling it and they will suck the state dry.I can guarantee that Telangana will become the most backward state in the south where lawlessness will rule.
The Outsider Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 That is good in theory but reality on ground are different. Jharkhand is a case in point which has not exactly set the stage ablaze since it has come on its own. Instead of being one of the richest states(which it should be based on natural resources) it is one of the most corrupt state that is laced with poverty, naxalism and often blind hatred for anything not Adivasi. If you think it is toughest for an honest person to win in politics, think again. It is probably harder for a non-Adivasi to win in Jharkhand. xxx you are wrong.these smaller states will become fiefdoms for whoever is ruling it and they will suck the state dry.I can guarantee that Telangana will become the most backward state in the south where lawlessness will rule. Jharkhand failing till now has nothing to do with the basic idea behind having small, successful governing units. It's failure is not because it is a smaller state. On the other hand, look at the success behind Punjab, HP, Harayana, Uttarakhand. Yes, I know there are a lot of emotions involved behind state creation and I am not supporting the creation of states purely on the basis of regional identities, but from the view of governance. UP has 200 million people - enough to be the fourth or fifth most populous country in the world. Does it make any sense to govern it as a state with a mere 400 legislators? All funds allocated for Uttarakhand never used to reach the region when it was part of UP. Now it has shown improvements by leaps and bounds upon all barometers like education, per capita income, tourism etc. Same with HP.
graphic23 Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Thats a fair argument Outsider. In principle, I do agree smaller states help with governance. In fact, if the reason for Telangana's creation is a fair one - that is, it would help with governance, and help focus more on development, then I do support it (albeit very reluctantly). But this whole issue came up because of an ego clash when the separatist leader KCR was not given a ministership in 1999 when CBN was CM. That makes me guess that he was just able to use sheepish mentality of the people to push for a state. In any case, I am sad. We dont have many differences in culture, language, etc. and I am sad that we're going to lose a big part of the state due to some politicians.
satishg Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So will Hyderabad stay with current AP or will it move to Telengana region as well since it comes within Telengana districts?
cндябеяs Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So will Hyderabad stay with current AP or will it move to Telengana region as well since it comes within Telengana districts? Hyderabad will be capital of telangana and union territory:cool:
gloryof83 Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 A real sad sad day in the history of India. The ego and greed of ONE man has split a state into two. pre kcr there was no strong telengana sentiment. It was him who made it an issue out of nothing. Although initially he was successful in creating some agitation and public support towards his cause, it was short lived as evidenced by the dismal performance of TRS in the recent polls. Shame on the congress govt for meekly surrendering to this man's greed.
flamy Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 :whine: :(( ^ teluguabbyi pwned :cantstop::cantstop: I dunno what is there to be sad about though? :dontknow: When the states were linguistically divided, there was a real difference between people of two different states. Now, with these kinds of regional separations, the difference is more geographical than cultural (local cultures have a temporal bound on their identity - the linguistic culture is definitely more recognizable), and thus paradoxically may lead to a more open-mindedness and acceptance between two regionally separated states, and hence between two linguistically different one and thus snowball (hopefully) into a more united India :isalute: If that doesn't work there is always IPL to throw shimit at each other and international cricket for making up like rabbits :icflove:
yoda Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Is there a way we (in TN) can get Tirupathi while the AP folks are resolving the Telengana issue?
graphic23 Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 No, but you can wash your heads though because they were stuck up Prabhakaran's ass all these days.
nballa Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 two telugu states, awesome. probably only second language to have a representation in multiple states. well maybe punjabi.
ViruRulez Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 92 MLAs of AP have now resigned over the Congress decision to divide Andhra into two. Today Gorkhas in West Bengal have also started an agitation for a seperate state of Gorkhaland including Darjeeling. They are going on a 92 bandh or fast as per the news. WTF is happening :wall:
suma25 Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 next in liine gorkhaland, now the nepalis want separate land of their own ( sab ko chadha ke rakha hainn chane ke jhaad par )
Recommended Posts