The demands for Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Harit Pradesh, Kongu Nadu,

Ramachandra Guha has piece explaining the need of new State in Andhra. He also urge for forming new States Reorganisation Commission (SRC):

Some excerpts:

• ‘The people of Telangana find themselves in an unenviable state. Their fellow countrymen outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, are unable to understand, much less appreciate, the significance of the revolt in Telangana’.
• ‘The moment Telangana elected representatives dehypnotise themselves from the lure and pressure of the Andhra political bosses, and fall in line with the aspirations of their electors, the movement will reach its natural culmination’.
• K. Chandrasekhar Rao, embodied the sentiments of millions of people. Since he was more obscure, and the prime minister of the day more powerful, it took his death (after 58 days without food) and the intensification of the street protests for the Centre to concede the new state. This then led to protests by Kannada, Marathi, and Malayalam speakers, in response to which a States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was created, which, in 1956, officially mandated the principle of linguistic states.
• In retrospect, it is clear that this reorganisation consolidated national unity, such that India did not go the way of Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which had to suffer bloody civil wars because of the unwillingness to grant linguistic autonomy. However, our nation-state is comparatively young, and still evolving. It now faces a second generation of challenges, these pertaining to the regional imbalances in social and economic development. A new SRC should be constituted, which would look dispassionately into the demands for Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Harit Pradesh, Kongu Nadu, and other such. Its mandate should also include the granting of real financial and political autonomy to panchayats and municipalities.
• To do its task fairly and honourably, a new SRC must draw its members not from political parties but from the law, the academy, and the social sector. The members of the first SRC were the jurist Fazl Ali, the author and diplomat K.M. Panikkar, and the social worker H.N. Kunzru. India today has a comparable set of distinguished and independent-minded people. Some names for a fresh SRC I might suggest are the jurist Fali Nariman, the economist Jean Dreze, the sociologist André Béteille, and the social worker Ela Bhatt — but there would be others, too.
• Meanwhile, expect Jaswant Singh to put aside his pen, thus to answer his constituents’ demand that he make Gorkhaland the sole object of his attentions. Ajit Singh may also be stirred out of his present lethargy to lead the movement for Harit Pradesh. As for Rao, he certainly knows the parallels with the movement in the 1950s for a separate Andhra. Potti Sriramulu’s fast was conducted in Madras; because he lived there, and because he wanted Madras to be the capital of Andhra Pradesh. In the event, Sriramulu’s supporters got their state but not that city. Rao’s greatest fear now must be that history would repeat itself in toto, such that they have their Telangana, but without Hyderabad.

The mega show of “uncivil” will kick start now….

So Indian Primer Political League is over. We all ready to watch a great drama of political gambles from Indian polity. 

Today’s parliamentary democracy in countries like India is more of “uncivil”. In fact it is not at all surprise to see such behaviour from our elected representatives in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as like others they consider we are in developing country. If any survey to find out how many members of parliament have really gone through the Peoples Representative Act will show you a dismal picture. 

Time and again this very “uncivil” behaviour and irresponsibility shown towards public is often interpreted as ‘norm’ than as a waste of public tax, time to useful debate etc. 

Even there is no serious debate on it to reform or dismantle such “uncivil” attitude in Indian polity. This very topic brings me attention to a writer who says the “..lack of interest in the speeches of others and the urge to put forward one's own views at any cost have become the staple of parliamentary procedure. It is difficult to say exactly when and how all this began. The aftermath of the Emergency was a kind of watershed. The general public has become inured to such incivility, and now it is by no means confined to Parliament or state legislatures. I have rarely witnessed a group discussion on television where at least three persons are not speaking, if not shouting at each other, at the same time.”