Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?

Expand Messages
  • vadlapudi kesavarao
    ... From: Nalamotu Chakravarthy Date: Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM Subject: Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states? To:
    Message 1 of 6 , May 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment


      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Nalamotu Chakravarthy <nalamotu@...>
      Date: Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM
      Subject: Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?
      To: vkvk9058@...


      Like this on Facebook Share this on Twitter

      Here's the article written by Sri C. Anjaneya Reddy garu, core member of Visalandhra Mahasabha. The article appeared in GovernanceNow a well respected magazine among Delhi's elite.

      The article can be found on their website at: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/can-india-be-conglomerate-500-states

      I am also enclosing the text of the article below.

      Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?
      That would be the logical conclusion of Telangana proponents’ argument of taking ‘sentiment’ into account and divide Andhra Pradesh

      Over two centuries of the Asaf Jahi rule [from 1724 to 1947] of the Deccan created a cultural divide among the Telugu speaking people. While the Telugu people of the coastal and Rayalaseema districts progressed in economic, educational and cultural fields under the British rule, their brethren in Nizam’s territories were subjected to exploitation and a primitive rule.

      Their language was suppressed – people could use only Urdu or Marathi in public discourse – and a process of acculturation took place in the name of ‘Hyderabadi’ culture which came to largely rely on the language, culture and even cuisine of north India, almost to the exclusion of the local language and culture. Induru became Nizamabad; Palamuru came to be called Mahabubnagar; Elagandala was renamed Karimnagar; Eedulakanti, a village near Hyderabad, was given a new name, Inder-Karan; a host of native names have been mutilated or replaced by outlandish names.

      An impression was sought to be created that the history of Telangana began with the Qutb-Shahis and ended with the Asaf Jahis! With the exception of Yazdani’s History of Deccan, no serious attempt was made to present a comprehensive history of this ancient land and culture. Yes, there was some awareness of Kakatiya rule but how about the Satavahana, Rashtrakuta and Chalukya rules? Was there any awareness of the Buddhist and Jain heritage of Telangana? Very little was known of the glorious history of the Samsthanams – almost all which were more ancient than Asaf Jahis – which accepted the suzerainty of the Nizam, sometime after long years of resistance, but retained their autonomy in large measure and continued to patronise the Telugu language and culture and protect the local people from the depredations of Rohillas and other predatory gangs that ravaged the Nizam’s territories taking advantage of its ill-organised administration and primitive police set-up.

      With the exception to some extent of the village records, all documents were in a language alien to the people. They were, in a way, outsiders in their own land! This was touted as the cosmopolitan culture of Hyderabad. If it was cosmopolitan, it was not inclusive cosmopolitanism, the kind the QutbShahis practised and sought to promote incurring the wrath of Aurangzeb who resented it and made it a charge against them while seizing the Golconda fort.

      Urdu was the language of administration and the administrators themselves came from north India till there was a mulki-agitation leading to the formulation of mulki-rules in 1919 during the Nizam rule. Both the Urdu and Marathi speaking people considered Hyderabad their own and Telugu, a language of culture in peninsular India even by then, as a language of no consequence, fit only to be used at home or for ordering about their servants! When Rajabahadur Venkatram Reddy, that redoubtable kotwal of Hyderabad, started the first Telugu school in Hyderabad for girls in as late as the 1930s, the Osmania university refused it recognition as the medium of instruction was not Urdu or English and he with all his influence in the court could not secure it. He had to go to the Mahila Vidyapeetam established by Maharshi Karve in Pune to affiliate his school. Echoing this sentiment, Bhimrao Ambedkar went to the extent of suggesting that if the Telugu people wanted their own state, they should have their capital in Warangal and not in Hyderabad! This was about the time when the Telugus in Hyderabad state wanted a separate state to escape the cultural suppression.

      Whatever one’s prejudices may be, one cannot deny that since the integration of the state, Telangana has come a long way both in the field of education and economic development. Investments poured into Telangana ever since it became part of the integrated state. Today, in visual arts and in the revival of folk traditions, Telangana leads the state; its lost art traditions like Perini have been revived and popularised. The literature that developed in its Samsthanams like Gadwal, Wanaparthi, Kollapur, Papannapet and Sirnapalli is now being collected and reprinted. Telugu oratory in Telangana is of a higher order than in other parts of the state. Its mellifluous non-Sanskritic Telugu spoken in the villages and used in folk literature can allure any language enthusiast! Thanks to the non-feudal ethos of the people who have come in from other parts of the state and owing to the sustained left movements in Telangana, abolition of the Patwari and Patel village administration by a chief minister that came from Andhra, a sea change has come about in Telangana wiping out the last traces of feudalism which pestered it into the 1950s. However, a fatal mistake was committed by the founding fathers in naming the integrated state as Andhra Pradesh when the historical name of the Telugu country from the time of the Qutb-Shahis, was Telangana, the home of the Telugu speaking people!

      Taking advantage of this, leaders of the Telangana agitation make motivated attempts to perpetuate imaginary cultural and language divides between the two regions where there are none, calling one region Telangana and the other Seemandhra. Telugu had a common script and common literature for well over a thousand years. Unlike some other languages, we never had any dialects.

      Interestingly, the present agitation for a separate state for Telangana has come about at a time when the historical wrongs were being undone and integration was taking place at various levels. It has also come at a time when Telangana in general and the city of Hyderabad in particular were making impressive strides in development; at a time when the quaint little town of Hyderabad has become a metropolis and is well on its way to become a world-class city; at a time when the youth was turning its back on extremism, thanks to the improved employment opportunities in and around Hyderabad; at a time when some districts of Telangana overtook the coastal districts in development including agriculture and food production!

      When the facts of development were pointed out by the Srikrishna commission, the organisers of the agitation, who had often alleged neglect of the region, turned around to say development was not the issue! It was the sentiment! If ‘sentiments’ are to be honoured, India will have to go back to the times when it was a conglomerate of 500-plus states! Also, for reasons of sentiment, we have no business to divide the Chenchu and Koya tribal homelands while carving a separate state for Telangana, as their territories fall both in and outside Telangana in the neighbouring Seemandhra. We shall also honour the sentiments of Gonds and get out of Adilabad where we have no business to be as it is Gond homeland; we have also to send away the large number of Lambadas who have made Adilabad district their home over the last century!

      This kind of sub-regional sentiments could have been avoided, had we implemented the provisions of the constitution according self-governance on district panchayats (called zilla parishads in Andhra Pradesh). Our constitution decrees that this nation shall be a three-tier democracy with powers of governance and resources devolving not only to the state governments but zilla parishads too, virtually ensuring district governments. Unfortunately, this has not happened. By some subterfuge or the other, some states have avoided implementing these constitutional provisions and retained the power and resources meant for zilla parishads with themselves. Andhra Pradesh, unfortunately, comes first among the delinquents and has paid the price by way of this recurrent divisive agitation which thrives on exploiting regional sentiments!

      In any case, if a separate state of Telangana is to be created, it has to be through a constitutional process. A few hooligans, who are often paid for their services, holding up trains or blocking traffic on the highways, cannot demand the bifurcation of a well-established state that has been there for over half a century. Has not Ambedkar said in the constituent assembly that we should learn to solve our problems through constitutional methods, now that we have a constitution in place?

      The party that has been agitating for a separate state is yet to win a seat in the Hyderabad municipal corporation, let alone a place in the assembly from the capital region. In two previous general elections, it couldn’t go to the polls on its own and survived because of alliance with one or the other of the two principal parties, Congress and Telugu Desam. Yet, it has the gumption to claim to be speaking for the people of Telangana! Let those parties which believe that the state has to be divided into two or three or more parts go to the polls making it their agenda for the next general election and honour the verdict of the people. Street-smartness, rabble-rousing and lobbying in the corridors of the Delhi court which through indecision and lack of ingenuity sustains this agitation, cannot substitute for the will of the people. Let them learn to honour and follow the democratic process.

      ©2013Nalamotu Chakravarthy | PO Box 841, Bolingbrook, IL- 60440
      This email was sent to vkvk9058@.... To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. View this email on the web here. You can also forward to a friend.
      Unsubscribe

       


    • Janardhan
      Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states? No! When Andhra state and other 13 states were created India did not break in to a conglomerate of 500 states. Why
      Message 2 of 6 , May 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        "Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?"
        No! When Andhra state and other 13 states were created India did not break in to a conglomerate of 500 states. Why would it break now?

        Indian Constitution permits formation of new states, with in India.14 new states were created after independence in India. As a matter of fact the Andhra state is the first new state created in 1953 after independence, in the face of most contentious circumstances. Conveniently you take language as alibi. But in the provisions of Constitution, language alone is not the criterion for creation of new states. The new states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal in 2000 were not created based on language.

        "That would be the logical conclusion of Telangana proponents' argument of taking `sentiment' into account and divide Andhra Pradesh."

        It is not the argument of sentiment. But, it is the most callous violation of all and sundry agreements and a systematic organized looting of Telangana resources and suppression of its history and culture, that is making Telangana people to demand for demerger, not for division. While you do not like to demerge the state on sentiment, why are you `vishalandhra' guys raising the emotion of language to keep it united? Why do you paint Andhra on telugu?Why do you call your campaign as `vishalandhra' and `samaikyandhra' if you want to live in harmony with the telugu people of Telangana.Your vishalandhra imperialism as surmised by Pandit Nehru before merger  still sounds lush in your chauvinistic campaign. You do not like to recognize the ethos of Telangana.But, you are so much concerned with your Andhra sentiment. Even after 5 ½ decade old Telangana movement and after the martyrdom of more than 1500 Telangana youth you still want to impose your vishalandhra imperialism on Telangana people. The human history reveals that people will agitate for coming out of the yoke of oppression, like Telangana people are doing. Whereas you vishalandhra buffs agitate for keeping Telangana people under the yoke of Andhra oppression in the name of language blackmail. When you don't like to even recognize the ethos of Telangana why should Telangana people put up with your vishalandhra imperialism? It is your vishalandhra proponents `argument of keeping the merged state united in the name of language to scuttle Telangana ethos and keep its people in perpetual bondage to Andhra hegemony that is the reason for the turmoil. If you think it with open mind with little intellectual honesty, it will not be difficult to understand this simple logic. But your unbridled chauvinism will not allow it.

        The rest of the chronicle in the article sounds like the assertion of the English and Spanish colonialists who claimed that they went in to the colonies to civilize the native people by their divine right. We all know what happened to those colonialists in the history.

         " In any case, if a separate state of Telangana is to be created, it has to be through a constitutional process."

        Yes, Telangana people are asking to create the new state as per the provisions of Indian constitution only. All political parties in the state have agreed to the creation of Telangana state on 7 December, 2009. A declaration as to the initiation of formation of Telangana was made in parliament on 9,decmber 2009.Telangana people are asking for the implementation of the declaration through constitutional process. They are not trying to get the new state a la `Khalistan' or 'Kashmir'.

        It is like wolf and goat kid story.


        --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, vadlapudi kesavarao wrote:
        >
        > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        > From: Nalamotu Chakravarthy nalamotu@...
        > Date: Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM
        > Subject: Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?
        > To: vkvk9058@...
        >
        >
        > [image: Like this on
        > Facebook]
        > [image:
        > Share this on Twitter]
        >
        > Here's the article written by Sri C. Anjaneya Reddy garu, core member of
        > Visalandhra Mahasabha. The article appeared in GovernanceNow a well
        > respected magazine among Delhi's elite.
        >
        > The article can be found on their website at:
        > http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/can-india-be-conglomerate-500-states
        > I am also enclosing the text of the article below.
        >
        > Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?
        > That would be the logical conclusion of Telangana proponents' argument of
        > taking `sentiment' into account and divide Andhra Pradesh
        >
        > Over two centuries of the Asaf Jahi rule [from 1724 to 1947] of the Deccan
        > created a cultural divide among the Telugu speaking people. While the
        > Telugu people of the coastal and Rayalaseema districts progressed in
        > economic, educational and cultural fields under the British rule, their
        > brethren in Nizam's territories were subjected to exploitation and a
        > primitive rule.
        >
        > Their language was suppressed – people could use only Urdu or Marathi in
        > public discourse – and a process of acculturation took place in the name of
        > `Hyderabadi' culture which came to largely rely on the language, culture
        > and even cuisine of north India, almost to the exclusion of the local
        > language and culture. Induru became Nizamabad; Palamuru came to be called
        > Mahabubnagar; Elagandala was renamed Karimnagar; Eedulakanti, a village
        > near Hyderabad, was given a new name, Inder-Karan; a host of native names
        > have been mutilated or replaced by outlandish names.
        >
        > An impression was sought to be created that the history of Telangana began
        > with the Qutb-Shahis and ended with the Asaf Jahis! With the exception of
        > Yazdani's History of Deccan, no serious attempt was made to present a
        > comprehensive history of this ancient land and culture. Yes, there was some
        > awareness of Kakatiya rule but how about the Satavahana, Rashtrakuta and
        > Chalukya rules? Was there any awareness of the Buddhist and Jain heritage
        > of Telangana? Very little was known of the glorious history of the
        > Samsthanams – almost all which were more ancient than Asaf Jahis – which
        > accepted the suzerainty of the Nizam, sometime after long years of
        > resistance, but retained their autonomy in large measure and continued to
        > patronise the Telugu language and culture and protect the local people from
        > the depredations of Rohillas and other predatory gangs that ravaged the
        > Nizam's territories taking advantage of its ill-organised administration
        > and primitive police set-up.
        >
        > With the exception to some extent of the village records, all documents
        > were in a language alien to the people. They were, in a way, outsiders in
        > their own land! This was touted as the cosmopolitan culture of Hyderabad.
        > If it was cosmopolitan, it was not inclusive cosmopolitanism, the kind the
        > QutbShahis practised and sought to promote incurring the wrath of Aurangzeb
        > who resented it and made it a charge against them while seizing the
        > Golconda fort.
        >
        > Urdu was the language of administration and the administrators themselves
        > came from north India till there was a mulki-agitation leading to the
        > formulation of mulki-rules in 1919 during the Nizam rule. Both the Urdu and
        > Marathi speaking people considered Hyderabad their own and Telugu, a
        > language of culture in peninsular India even by then, as a language of no
        > consequence, fit only to be used at home or for ordering about their
        > servants! When Rajabahadur Venkatram Reddy, that redoubtable kotwal of
        > Hyderabad, started the first Telugu school in Hyderabad for girls in as
        > late as the 1930s, the Osmania university refused it recognition as the
        > medium of instruction was not Urdu or English and he with all his influence
        > in the court could not secure it. He had to go to the Mahila Vidyapeetam
        > established by Maharshi Karve in Pune to affiliate his school. Echoing this
        > sentiment, Bhimrao Ambedkar went to the extent of suggesting that if the
        > Telugu people wanted their own state, they should have their capital in
        > Warangal and not in Hyderabad! This was about the time when the Telugus in
        > Hyderabad state wanted a separate state to escape the cultural suppression.
        >
        > Whatever one's prejudices may be, one cannot deny that since the
        > integration of the state, Telangana has come a long way both in the field
        > of education and economic development. Investments poured into Telangana
        > ever since it became part of the integrated state. Today, in visual arts
        > and in the revival of folk traditions, Telangana leads the state; its lost
        > art traditions like Perini have been revived and popularised. The
        > literature that developed in its Samsthanams like Gadwal, Wanaparthi,
        > Kollapur, Papannapet and Sirnapalli is now being collected and reprinted.
        > Telugu oratory in Telangana is of a higher order than in other parts of the
        > state. Its mellifluous non-Sanskritic Telugu spoken in the villages and
        > used in folk literature can allure any language enthusiast! Thanks to the
        > non-feudal ethos of the people who have come in from other parts of the
        > state and owing to the sustained left movements in Telangana, abolition of
        > the Patwari and Patel village administration by a chief minister that came
        > from Andhra, a sea change has come about in Telangana wiping out the last
        > traces of feudalism which pestered it into the 1950s. However, a fatal
        > mistake was committed by the founding fathers in naming the integrated
        > state as Andhra Pradesh when the historical name of the Telugu country from
        > the time of the Qutb-Shahis, was Telangana, the home of the Telugu speaking
        > people!
        >
        > Taking advantage of this, leaders of the Telangana agitation make motivated
        > attempts to perpetuate imaginary cultural and language divides between the
        > two regions where there are none, calling one region Telangana and the
        > other Seemandhra. Telugu had a common script and common literature for well
        > over a thousand years. Unlike some other languages, we never had any
        > dialects.
        >
        > Interestingly, the present agitation for a separate state for Telangana has
        > come about at a time when the historical wrongs were being undone and
        > integration was taking place at various levels. It has also come at a time
        > when Telangana in general and the city of Hyderabad in particular were
        > making impressive strides in development; at a time when the quaint little
        > town of Hyderabad has become a metropolis and is well on its way to become
        > a world-class city; at a time when the youth was turning its back on
        > extremism, thanks to the improved employment opportunities in and around
        > Hyderabad; at a time when some districts of Telangana overtook the coastal
        > districts in development including agriculture and food production!
        >
        > When the facts of development were pointed out by the Srikrishna
        > commission, the organisers of the agitation, who had often alleged neglect
        > of the region, turned around to say development was not the issue! It was
        > the sentiment! If `sentiments' are to be honoured, India will have to go
        > back to the times when it was a conglomerate of 500-plus states! Also, for
        > reasons of sentiment, we have no business to divide the Chenchu and Koya
        > tribal homelands while carving a separate state for Telangana, as their
        > territories fall both in and outside Telangana in the neighbouring
        > Seemandhra. We shall also honour the sentiments of Gonds and get out of
        > Adilabad where we have no business to be as it is Gond homeland; we have
        > also to send away the large number of Lambadas who have made Adilabad
        > district their home over the last century!
        >
        > This kind of sub-regional sentiments could have been avoided, had we
        > implemented the provisions of the constitution according self-governance on
        > district panchayats (called zilla parishads in Andhra Pradesh). Our
        > constitution decrees that this nation shall be a three-tier democracy with
        > powers of governance and resources devolving not only to the state
        > governments but zilla parishads too, virtually ensuring district
        > governments. Unfortunately, this has not happened. By some subterfuge or
        > the other, some states have avoided implementing these constitutional
        > provisions and retained the power and resources meant for zilla parishads
        > with themselves. Andhra Pradesh, unfortunately, comes first among the
        > delinquents and has paid the price by way of this recurrent divisive
        > agitation which thrives on exploiting regional sentiments!
        >
        > In any case, if a separate state of Telangana is to be created, it has to
        > be through a constitutional process. A few hooligans, who are often paid
        > for their services, holding up trains or blocking traffic on the highways,
        > cannot demand the bifurcation of a well-established state that has been
        > there for over half a century. Has not Ambedkar said in the constituent
        > assembly that we should learn to solve our problems through constitutional
        > methods, now that we have a constitution in place?
        >
        > The party that has been agitating for a separate state is yet to win a seat
        > in the Hyderabad municipal corporation, let alone a place in the assembly
        > from the capital region. In two previous general elections, it couldn't go
        > to the polls on its own and survived because of alliance with one or the
        > other of the two principal parties, Congress and Telugu Desam. Yet, it has
        > the gumption to claim to be speaking for the people of Telangana! Let those
        > parties which believe that the state has to be divided into two or three or
        > more parts go to the polls making it their agenda for the next general
        > election and honour the verdict of the people. Street-smartness,
        > rabble-rousing and lobbying in the corridors of the Delhi court which
        > through indecision and lack of ingenuity sustains this agitation, cannot
        > substitute for the will of the people. Let them learn to honour and follow
        > the democratic process.
        > ©2013 Nalamotu Chakravarthy | PO Box 841, Bolingbrook, IL- 60440
        > This email was sent to vkvk9058@... To ensure that you
        > continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe
        > list. View this email on the web
        > here
        > . You can also forward to a
        > friend
        > .
        > Unsubscribe
        > Powered by *Mad Mimi* ®
        >
        >
      • jeevananda reddy
        Namaskar, You said you are not going to interact any more.  Again and again you are pouring your views. Let me ask you a simple question -- Who stopped Dr. M.
        Message 3 of 6 , May 9, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Namaskar,

          You said you are not going to interact any more.  Again and again you are pouring your views. Let me ask you a simple question -- Who stopped Dr. M. Chenna Reddy to continue the movement, if he is really interested in separation? He would have continued until he gets the separation. He was happy with the power and development was achieved in his region at the cost of other regions; and now again somebody started.  Don't you think such frequent power politics based moments affect the development and as well poor in all over Andhra Pradesh?

          NDA promised to give separate state but they gave three states and they did not dothe same for AP. Why?, they want power so every time the BJP play politics.  Now, in 2014 BJP wants support and so again they harping on separate state.  Shusma Swaraj talks too much but she has no standing in her own state and gor elected from Karnataka. In 2014 What happens, she does not know but harping on separating AP!!!

          Thanks

          Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy


        • Janardhan
          Dear Sir, Namasthe, I said I will not interact with you and on that particular topic.That does not mean that I will not react to the discussion on different
          Message 4 of 6 , May 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            Dear Sir,
            Namasthe,
            I said I will not interact with you and on that particular topic.That does not mean that I will not react to the discussion on different topics relating to the subject.I was replying to the particular topic 'Can India be a conglomerate of 500 states?'.It will be meaningful if we express our views in relation to the observations made in the topic of discussion instead of broadcasting our pre-judgement.Your question and observation in the message is totally irrelevant to the points I have discussed on the topic. You are saying every thing except talking the grievances of Telangana. It is quite apparent that you have decided to say no to every thing  that is Telangana. I will definitely interact wherever I feel there is a need and pour my views, to make the discussion meaningful in this forum, and oppose obscurantism against the democratic struggle of people.
            Thanks

            --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, jeevananda reddy wrote:
            >
            > Namaskar,
            >
            > You said you are not going to interact any more.  Again and again you are pouring your views. Let me ask you a simple question -- Who stopped Dr. M. Chenna Reddy to continue the movement, if he is really interested in separation? He would have continued until he gets the separation. He was happy with the power and development was achieved in his region at the cost of other regions; and now again somebody started.  Don't you think such frequent power politics based moments affect the development and as well poor in all over Andhra Pradesh?
            >
            > NDA promised to give separate state but they gave three states and they did not dothe same for AP. Why?, they want power so every time the BJP play politics.  Now, in 2014 BJP wants support and so again they harping on separate state.  Shusma Swaraj talks too much but she has no standing in her own state and gor elected from Karnataka. In 2014 What happens, she does not know but harping on separating AP!!!
            >
            > Thanks
            >
            > Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
            >

          • rsubhash@rocketmail.com
            Please go and ask Dr M Chenna Reddy! Don t ask us. Subhash C Reddy, PhD ... are pouring your views. Let me ask you a simple question -- Who stopped Dr. M.
            Message 5 of 6 , May 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Please go and ask Dr M Chenna Reddy!  Don't ask us.

              Subhash C Reddy, PhD

              --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, jeevananda reddy wrote:
              >
              > Namaskar,
              >
              > You said you are not going to interact any more.  Again and again you are pouring your views. Let me ask you a simple question -- Who stopped Dr. M. Chenna Reddy to continue the movement, if he is really interested in separation? He would have continued until he gets the separation. He was happy with the power and development was achieved in his region at the cost of other regions; and now again somebody started.  Don't you think such frequent power politics based moments affect the development and as well poor in all over Andhra Pradesh?
              >
              > NDA promised to give separate state but they gave three states and they did not dothe same for AP. Why?, they want power so every time the BJP play politics.  Now, in 2014 BJP wants support and so again they harping on separate state.  Shusma Swaraj talks too much but she has no standing in her own state and gor elected from Karnataka. In 2014 What happens, she does not know but harping on separating AP!!!
              >
              > Thanks
              >
              > Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
              >
            • rsubhash@rocketmail.com
              The person who originally asked this question should first know the meaning of a Conglomerate. If he did, he wouldn t have asked such a question. Let me help
              Message 6 of 6 , May 13, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                The person who originally asked this question should first know the meaning of a Conglomerate.  If he did, he wouldn't have asked such a question.  Let me help to educate:

                Conglomerate Definition | Investopedia
                www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conglomerate.asp‎

                A corporation that is made up of a number of different, seemingly unrelated businesses.

                Well, it is clear that, by the definition, India IS NOT A CONGLOMERATE because it is not made up of seemingly unrelated parts.

                Extrapolation from the present 29 States (the rest are UTs) to a total of 500 is nothing short of 500.  What kind of a mind would go berserk like that?
                With Telangana and every other demand for separate State currently, the number wouldn't even exceed 39!  Any sense here?

                I am reminded of Tenali Ramakrishna's admonition to that other poet who stated that the trunk of an elephant entered a mosquito :

                Tenali's response?  He said:  Ekkada Kunjara Yudhambu Jochhe....?

                Subhash C. Reddy, Ph.D.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.