The Reason for creation of Telangana, political or social???

Congress-Led UPA ruling coalition approves formation of new state Telangana by dividing Andhra Pradesh. But what took it so long to approve Telangana as 29^th state as telangana state demand was from 1948. The formation of telangana has raised many question.  Does small states guarantee of good governance??? Or Congress looking for political advantage by formation of telangana?

Subsequent to integration of 550 princely dominions into the Indian Union in 1956, languages was chosen as the basis on which the new states were formed. Only exception was Hindi the heartland which was so massive that it was considered sensible to create several states.

The reason behind the formation of linguistic states was the belief that language is the basis of culture. If same language was spoken over a state it meant that it represented identical culture. But it was a faulty belief to start with. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was created on a linguistic basis. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was formed on a linguistic basis. The state was formed against the wishes of the people of Telangana. People of Telangana never wanted the region to be merged with the Andhra state (formed in 1953 after separation from Madras state) as they felt that Andhra's culture was different from Telangana.

This was the basic difference between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and why people of Telangana wanted their state?? Now lets focus on Will congress get political advantage from formation of telangana.

Kiran Kumar Reddy is a devoted Congressman and was chosen by Congress president Sonia Gandhi to be the chief minister of the state in the aftermath of a soaring YSR Reddy. But history is not on his sided. His ministers and MLAs are resigning but that’s not an issue here. As 29th state of the Indian Union comes into presence in the next few months, he should replicate on the historicity of the formation of the 26th, 27th & 28th states of the Indian Union – Chhattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand out of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand out of Bihar.

It is quite fascinating that none of the three chief ministers who controlled over the parent state – Digvijaya Singh in Madhya Pradesh, Rajnath Singh in Uttar Pradesh and Rabri Devi in Bihar retuned to power after the split of their states. But all of three lose election when elections were in respective state.

In Andhra Pradesh, both lok sabha and state assembly elections will coincide in april-may 2014. Kiran Kumar Reddy will require simply more luck or hard work of party workers to return to power. What is sure for now, is that he is intended to the have history recurrence for him as did for the three above cited chief ministers. But he knows that if he keeps party high command in good humor, he can still have a good career in the party even if the game is lost out for him in the home state.

Equally fascinating is to know that those who created history by being the chief minister of these three new found states Ajit Jogi in Chhatisgarh, Nityanand Swami in Uttrakhand and Babulal Marandi in Jharkhand also did not return to power.

Congress won maximum number of seats from Andhra Pradesh in 2009 lok sabha elections. Now after the formation of Telagana, Andhra Pradesh will  have 25 seats out of 42 and rest 17 will be in Telangana. In this 17, Congress is ruling in 12 seats of course cause of YSR reddy. Like the past formation os state BJP leadership of 2000, the Congress high command has good solid reasons to formTelangana. The party has cut its losses, which it would have otherwise grievously suffered if it had not spitted Andhra. The party may still loose badly in the 25 parliamentary seats of the parent state Andhra Pradesh, but could gain ominously in the 17 seats of the Telangana region, as after the formation of Telangana (TRS) will not have any political issue so most probably TRS will merge with Congress.

Now look at the development story, Does small states a guarantee of good governance?? I will go into facts for this question. Between 2004-05 to 2011-12, the annual growth rate of the mother-daughter states.

Bihar-11

Jharkhand- 6

Madhya Pradesh -9

Chhatisgarh- 9

Uttar Pradesh- 7

Uttrakhand – 16

Obviously its always easy to handle a small state rather than a large one. But for good governance, states required a good leader with good administrative capability and bill to rule the state towards development. As Bihar is not a small state, but still working better than Jharkhand.

The formation of Telangana was inevitable. The upcoming 2014 elections in Telangana, both parliamentary and assembly could just be the way for Congress.  It is now time to explore a Second Republic with numerous smaller states based on their economic sustainability.