an excellent analysis (in telugu), by sam gundimeda, of why some dalit activists/leaders in telangana and andhra-rayalaseema seem to think that separation would solve the problem of categorisation. and the author's view? he thinks it won't solve the problem, and i concur with him completely.
in another post, he wonders why dalits of andhra are supporting the movement for a united state when the movement is led by upper caste businessmen who wish to protect their businesses and properties in hyderabad, especially when those big businessmen don't even employ dalits, except in the lower rungs.
will those who have businesses and properties in hyderabad be affected by the creation of a new state? the answer is a clear 'no'. the indian constitution offers enough protection to those who own businesses and properties anywhere in the country.
the creation of a new state shall not stop either lagadipati rajagopal of lanco or kavuri sambasiva rao of progressive constructions or a few others like them from doing business or acquiring more property in hyderabad, or telangana. in fact, the creation of two or three or four new states (telangana, coastal andhra, greater rayalaseema and kalinga-andhra) would help them much more than other sections of society, in general, and businessmen in particular. because, as businessmen with special interest and experience in the field of construction and infrastructure, in the event/s of the creation of one or two or three new capitals each requiring 50,000 crores or 1,00,000 crores or much more of investments in infrastructure in the next ten years or twenty years or more, wouldn't business opportunities for them go up several times?
both lanco and progressive constructions have operations across the country now. please check those websites: lanco, for instance, has projects in around 11 states. logically speaking, i think companies like lanco would like nothing better than one or two or three new telugu speaking states where the company's top bosses would have strong links with both the political bosses and the top layers of the old/new bureaucracies (including those in telangana).
so, why do businessmen-politicians like l.rajagopal or k.sambasiva rao support the idea of a united state? as businessmen, as i pointed out, they should prefer division. but i think as politicians, they can't afford to ignore the concerns of their constituents, especially the vocal middle classes. and there are hundreds of other elected politicians, apart from those two and a few more, who aren't businessmen and they don't see much sense in division either. those two businessmen-politicians are more important to the separatists in telangana, than to the supporters of a united state, because they are so very easy and visible to point out, to caricaturize by infusing a lot of speculative masala about their deeds or misdeeds in popular discourse, build a not-very-savoury figure of a typical andhra politician. and by logical extension, build a strong stereotype that shall serve to demonize all people from andhra-rayalaseema as not-very-pleasant human beings, progressively, in the eyes of the average telangani. and that stereotype shall embrace everyone, eventually, irrespective of class, caste or creed.
i think it's good to start thinking about what all the classes, starting from the lowest, of andhra pradesh start to lose if the state is bifurcated or trifurcated or cut up into more pieces. one can't support or oppose division depending on what your traditional oppressors are doing because your enemy's enemy isn't always your friend. to use another cliche, to put it more eloquently: one can't cut off one's nose to spite one's face.