Similarity between reservation and Separate state demands

Here is the population distribution in India with respect to castes:

What can we infer from the above statistics?

• The forward caste population of 'All India' is 35%. It must be noted that in India 19% of population comes under Minorities and they fall under general category. So, the General, non-minority population in India is somewhere near to 20%
• The states which are mentioned in 'green' are those states where the general population is near or less than the National average and whose total population is considerably high when compared to other states. It means that only 1/3rd of the population in those states are general. And 1/5th of population is non-minority general class.

                      
                        Many say that, this 20% of the population who are well educated, have been rich for many generations and who fall under the forward caste category have all the eligibility to get about 90% of the government jobs and college seats. And this population feels that it is only due to reservation system, they are missing great opportunities.

                        The rest of population say that .. If this 20% population makes law / controls the government, where is the social equality for rest of 80% population?

                        The answer from that 20% population would be - "We studied hard, worked hard to secure a good job and even at work, we have performed very well so we have come to this position. How can one stop us and blame the forward caste for not letting others to develop?"

                        The counter for this question by the remaining population would be - "We were deprived of opportunities to study. At work, we were not given prefernces since we did not have suitable qualification. We are oppressed for  many decades.. etc".

                        When I think about this situation I see a small similarity between reservations and separate-state demands.

Here is the reason for a demand of separate state:

                         If a state comprises of two or three regions,
                                         - one being extremely developed and
                                         - other being extremely backward,
                         it is true that people from highly developed part will dominate the latter. It must be accepted that people from backward region did not get chance to develop due to socio-economic reasons.

This problem is still active in these regions of the following states:

1. Telangana region of AP state when compared to coastal Andhra.
2. Vidarbha region and Marathwada region of Maharastra when comapred to Pune-Mumbai belt.
3. Dharwada-Hubli and other North K'taka when compared to people from M'lore-B'lore
4. The Ladhakh region when compared to Jammu.

                           So, people from a backward region always point it out that " We were deprived of opportunities to study. At work, we were not given preferences since we did not have suitable qualification. (And here, the people from other region would be given this chance if they had the qualification at that time - Eg. A super-in-tendent can never become an Officer if he did not have a graduation degree). We are oppressed for  many decades.. etc".

                            And the people from developed region say " We did not do any unlawful things in rising to higher positions. We studied hard, cleared group exams and we are here."

It is true that both the arguments are correct.

What can we imply from this?

                           The way we see a situation matters a lot. If we support a separate state, we should support the reservation system and apply the reservation system in all fields including politics, cabinet and also at work. Similarly, If we do not support a separate state, we should not support the reservation system too.

So, nothing is good or bad. Let us think laterally and stick to our opinions.