Business Standard / New Delhi Dec 11, 2009, 00:03 IST
The sudden manner in which the Union government has chosen to address the demand for a separate state of Telangana, carved out of Andhra Pradesh, raises an important question for corporate India regarding the future of Hyderabad. The “triplet” cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad-Cyberabad have emerged as a major centre of business. The location of an international airport has further contributed to the globalisation of the city. Apart from the emergent business communities from various parts of Andhra Pradesh, especially coastal Andhra, businesses from across the country and the world have been investing in and around Hyderabad. The future structure of governance in the country’s sixth largest metropolis will be a matter of concern for all existing and potential investors. Apart from the impact on land values, there would be an impact on plans for a range of investments in and around the city. Earlier decisions to bifurcate large states, as in the case of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, did not involve the future of any large metropolitan city. In the case of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad’s future is critically linked to the manner in which the question of Telangana is resolved. The idea of making Hyderabad a Union Territory has been mooted for long. It is not clear if such issues have been considered by the group of wise men from the United Progressive Alliance, led by veteran Congress leader Pranab Mukherjee, that was charged with the responsibility of addressing the issue of Telangana.
It is, in fact, unfortunate that the Union government chose to buckle under the pressure of a fast unto death by a politician whose party did not fare particularly well in recent elections even as the ruling Congress, whose manifesto did not even promise statehood for Telangana, did remarkably well, without allowing the Mukherjee group to finish its deliberations.
It is also not clear why the Congress and the UPA government never chose to implement some of the solutions that came out of the earlier agitation for a separate Telangana in 1969-70, especially the idea of creating Regional Development Boards with region-specific budgets and plan allocations. Whatever the final political settlement on Telangana, India Inc would be deeply interested in the future of Hyderabad, especially policies pertaining to urban governance and infrastructure development. The decision of a sitting Congress member of Parliament to resign on the issue opens up the new problem of whether the rest of the state would be satisfied with bifurcation or there would be trifurcation with Andhra and Rayalaseema created as new states. It remains to be seen how the Congress will handle the issue in coming months, having fudged the issue for so many years and now capitulating under pressure. One eminently sensible way of handling all the issues is to be found in the UPA’s national common minimum programme of 2004, to which even Mr K Chandrashekhar Rao’s Telangana Rashtra Samithi had signed up. It had promised the constitution of a second States Reorganisation Commission (SRC). With demands for a Harit Pradesh and Bundelkhand in the north, the time may have come for a new SRC.
Is Business Standard, the newspaper I respect and (of course, TN Ninan even more), beholden to Rajagopal and the Lanco group in anyway? What is your basis for questioning the future of Hyderabad, a city with 400 years of history? It was the fifth largest city in good old days of 1955(before the curse of merger with Andhra happened) and is the 6th largest now. Who is sponsoring this end-of-the-world scenario for Hyderabad? People like Rajagopal, whose rise can be attributed, not to entrepreneurship, but to crony capitalism.
Your second specious observation is that there is no support for Telangana since TRS lost elections. Like it is a bad decision to decide on the basis of mere headline numbers, it is bad analysis to conclude on headline news. Which party dared go before Telanganites without supporting statehood? Every one of them promised support.
I expected a better analysis to understand why such a demand for a separate state sustained for 50 years.
Well, why not let hyderabadis vote whether they want to be in Telangana or be union territoy ? What are telangana folks afraid of (Hint: TRS didn't even contest hyderabad municipal elections recently as they would have been totally embarrased)
Why should Hyderabad suffer if it were made the capital of Telengana? After all the city will contribute at least 50% of the revenue of this State! Minus Hyderabad, Telegnana will be an unviable basket case. The entire noise is from YSR acolytes, Chandrababu Naidu and Chiranjeevi, all of whom are from outside Telengana and have massive investments in Hyderabad and are apprehensive they will no longer be able to mint money out Hyderabad as new politicians from Telengana will want to "enjoy" these "benefits"!!! India Inc will not bother about the status of Hyderabad so long as the Telenagana Government ensures an investment friendly climate and good governance. Making Hyderabad a union territory is the worst idea as the new Andhra does not touch this city at all (unlike Chandigarh). There will be renewed calls for making Mumbai a union territory as it is the financial capital of India and practically 90% of investments have been made by non Maharashtrians.
this is purely political stunt there is no improvement and devleopment of individual state people this pictures is shown nearest state peoples are raising same problem
By questioning the future of Hyderabad you are essentially making fools out of the people of Telangana. Hyderabad has always been the capital of Telangana. How can it be taken away from them now just because outsiders migrated there? Why not Hyderabad can function as it is even after it becomes the capital of Telangana? The talk about 1969 resolutions is useless now, given the fact that they were never implemented.
Content Guide
