logo
NDA's first year in office presents a mixed bag in AP

NDA's first year in office presents a mixed bag in AP

Hans India3 hours ago

The adage 'a mirror never lies' holds true, and the recent survey by People's Pulse Research Organisation clearly reflects that the coalition government in Andhra Pradesh has little to boast about after its first year in power.
The promises made during elections remain largely unfulfilled, and public expectations remain unmet. The NDA coalition partners—Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Jana Sena, and BJP—find themselves in an unenviable position: the majority of the state's populace is waiting, burdened by problems yet hopeful for solutions. The prevailing public sentiment is not about revenge against opponents or factional gains, but a desire for welfare and development.
Despite the central government's cooperation, economic progress is modest, at best. Caste equations are tilting towards reconfiguration. The TDP's internal discord has become a challenge to coalition unity, while Jana Sena's leadership struggles to maintain party survival.
The BJP appears to lack a clear vision for growth in Andhra Pradesh. Meanwhile, the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) has failed to renew hope among the people, who see no change in its leadership. This broadly sums up the political, economic, and social landscape after one year of governance in Andhra Pradesh.
A closer look reveals that the government's claims of being 'good' are not shared by the people. The People's Pulse survey, conducted across districts from Ichchapuram to Kuppam and Machilipatnam to Madakasira, engaging diverse age groups and communities, brings to light the fact that public opinion is largely skeptical. There is a cautious wait-and-see attitude—some promises have been partially fulfilled, but people are uncertain if the rest will be honoured.
Officials' performance is viewed as unsatisfactory, and the ruling coalition's 'Red Book' culture (a term denoting vendetta politics) is widely resented. National parties are weakening while regional forces are growing stronger.
Coordination among coalition partners seems lacking. The opposition YSRCP, despite being in opposition, fails to offer a credible alternative, with public scrutiny focusing on its leadership style and party conduct. The media and political parties remain polarized, often disconnected from genuine public issues and aspirations.
The electorate believes that the ruling coalition need not offer anything new to justify itself; it should at least fulfill the promises made during elections. While pensions have been increased and distributed properly, other cash-based election promises remain unfulfilled, causing public dissatisfaction.
The recent rollout of the 'Talliki Vandana' scheme (replacing Amma Vodi) has generated some positive feedback on the ground. However, people want welfare and development to proceed in a coordinated manner. Unfulfilled promises such as the 'Super Six' employment guarantees, unemployment benefits, farmer welfare schemes, monthly financial aid of Rs 1500 for those aged 18-69 years, and free bus services remain a concern. Locals acknowledge improvements in peace and security, road repairs, and sand mining regulations. Progress on the capital city Amaravati and Polavaram projects has accelerated, which is a source of satisfaction. However, criticism persists that ministers, MPs, and MLAs have been involved in nepotism and family patronage from early on, a practice that was less pronounced during the YSRCP government's initial years. Employment promises remain unmet, and people demand the implementation of the 'Prajagalam' scheme. The government's delay in delivering on its commitments raises questions among the public.
Neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition has conducted a thorough review of why they won or lost. The ruling coalition maintains a confident stance, asserting that it is delivering governance according to the people's wishes and dismissing the opposition as ineffective. Conversely, the YSRCP claims the coalition government has failed in all areas and that the electorate will realize this and return YSRCP to power in four years. Both sides remain entrenched in echo chambers, unwilling to acknowledge realities. Despite the current political scenario, indications from the public suggest that by 2029, the one-party dominance of 2024 will no longer prevail.
The public perceives that while Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu remains the central figure, others in the government have not performed well. Ordinary citizens accept Pawan Kalyan, the Deputy Chief Minister, but there is no widespread support for the Chief Minister's son Nara Lokesh as a future leader. The people are not ready for Chandrababu's radical experiments or his futuristic visions such as the 2047 concept or P-4 ideology, which remain obscure and unconvincing.
Although projects are progressing faster with central assistance, the response to Amaravati's development is mixed, with concerns about regional disparities and inequality. There is a growing perception that the interests of Uttarandhra and Rayalaseema regions are being neglected. Land pooling controversies in the capital region persist, with doubts among original farmers. There is a call to extend tenant farmers' leases and pensions for another decade.
The Polavaram project has restarted, but the displaced persons' issues remain complex. While law and order are not as dire as alleged by the YSRCP, revenge attacks and factional conflicts in Palnadu and some Seema areas continue to trouble the people. Citizens question the ongoing 'Red Book' vendetta politics and factionalism, asking what has changed since the previous government's failure. The average public opinion is a plea for coordinated welfare and development as promised.
The coalition's policies and actions are seen as exacerbating regional and caste divisions. Influential Reddys are drifting back towards YSRCP, while communities such as Kamma, Kapu, Kshatriya, Vaishya, BC, and Madiga largely support the coalition. Conversely, Reddys, Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and other groups are strengthening the YSRCP's base. This social realignment signals new political reconfigurations ahead.
Despite suffering a severe electoral defeat—dropping from 151 to 11 seats—the YSRCP retains about 40 per cent vote share and remains a strong political force in the state. There is a general expectation that its chief Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy will modify his style and approach as an effective means to reconnect with the people and address their problems. Until such changes occur, the party's political fortunes are unlikely to improve. The public rejects the notion that the people will automatically re-elect YSRCP in the next elections. One major obstacle is the still-active 'coterie' around Jagan, which continues to act as a barrier between him, his party, and the public. The perception that 'Jagan is fighting for us' has yet to take root widely.
Within the coalition, the TDP, expected to play the leading role, has been embroiled in internal strife since government formation. Possibly due to dependence on the central government, the TDP leadership appears to accept BJP's dominant role in the coalition. The public perceives that the BJP is negligible politically in the state. Jana Sena facesa similar predicament. In constituencies represented by Jana Sena, the TDP dominance is evident. The lack of close rapport between party chief Pawan Kalyan and his MLAs, and organisational weaknesses, have left the party in a precarious position. Only the young and loyal cadres seem responsive to Pawan's initiatives.
The general public feels that Pawan Kalyan must uphold coalition principles, maintain Jana Sena's identity, and act decisively and straightforwardly as elections approach.
Both the ruling coalition and opposition have achieved little in the past year; time has only passed without substantial progress.
(The writer is a Political Analyst, People's Pulse Research Organisation)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Karnataka Introduces Stringent Anti-Hate Speech Legislation Targeting Digital Platforms
Karnataka Introduces Stringent Anti-Hate Speech Legislation Targeting Digital Platforms

Hans India

time11 minutes ago

  • Hans India

Karnataka Introduces Stringent Anti-Hate Speech Legislation Targeting Digital Platforms

The Karnataka government has unveiled comprehensive draft legislation aimed at combating hate speech and identity-based violence, with particular focus on digital platforms and enhanced enforcement mechanisms. The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025, establishes severe penalties including up to three years imprisonment and Rs 5,000 in monetary fines for individuals found guilty of violations under the proposed law. According to sources, under the draft framework, hate speech and hate crimes will be classified as non-bailable and non-cognisable offenses, significantly strengthening the legal response to such incidents. The legislation defines hate crimes as any actions causing harm, inciting violence, or promoting hatred based on various identity characteristics including religion, caste, gender, sexual orientation, tribal affiliation, language, or disability status. The bill's definition of hate speech encompasses all forms of communication whether verbal, written, visual, or digital that intentionally promotes hostility or encourages harmful actions against individuals or groups. Notably, the law extends to content shared in both public and private forums, making even the act of providing access to such material subject to legal prosecution. A groundbreaking aspect of the proposed legislation involves holding digital intermediaries directly accountable for content hosted on their platforms. Social media companies, search engines, telecommunications operators, online marketplaces, and internet service providers could face identical penalties including imprisonment and financial sanctions if they knowingly or unknowingly facilitate the spread of hate content. This represents a significant expansion of platform responsibility beyond current regulatory frameworks. The bill also targets individuals who enable hate speech and hate crimes through various forms of support. Those providing financial backing, offering platforms, or otherwise assisting in the commission of such offenses may receive the same penalties as the primary perpetrators, creating a comprehensive network of accountability. District magistrates will receive substantial preventive powers under the proposed law, allowing them to issue orders in regions where communal disturbances appear likely. These authorities can prohibit public gatherings, processions, loudspeaker usage, or any activities deemed capable of inciting fear or violence. Initial restrictions may last up to 30 days with possible extensions reaching 60 days based on assessed necessity. The legislation introduces victim impact statements as a formal legal mechanism, enabling affected individuals or their representatives to submit sworn testimonies detailing psychological, physical, social, or financial damages experienced. Courts will be mandated to consider these statements when determining appropriate sentencing for convicted offenders. While establishing strict penalties, the bill includes specific exemptions for protected speech categories. Genuine artistic expression, academic research, scientific analysis, factual journalistic reporting, and religious discourse remain protected provided such content does not actively incite violence or promote hatred against targeted groups. Implementation of the legislation will require comprehensive awareness campaigns, specialized training programs for government officials, and extensive public education initiatives. These responsibilities may be delegated to existing state commissions including the Human Rights Commission or the Commission for Women, ensuring institutional support for the law's objectives. The draft provides legal protection for government officials acting in good faith while implementing the bill's provisions, safeguarding them from retaliatory legal action. Additionally, the state government will possess authority to develop detailed rules and regulations for enforcement, subject to oversight by the state legislature to ensure democratic accountability in the law's application. This legislative initiative represents Karnataka's ambitious attempt to address growing concerns about hate speech proliferation, particularly in digital spaces, while balancing free expression rights with community safety and social harmony objectives.

Samajwadi Party expels 3 MLAs over a year after ‘cross-voting' in Rajya Sabha polls
Samajwadi Party expels 3 MLAs over a year after ‘cross-voting' in Rajya Sabha polls

Indian Express

time13 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Samajwadi Party expels 3 MLAs over a year after ‘cross-voting' in Rajya Sabha polls

More than a year after several Samajwadi Party MLAs allegedly cross-voted in the Rajya Sabha elections, the party on Sunday expelled three of them — Abhay Singh (Gosaiganj, Ayodhya), Rakesh Pratap Singh (Gauriganj, Amethi), and Manoj Kumar Pandey (Unchahar, Rae Bareli), a former Chief Whip in the Assembly — for 'supporting a divisive and communal' ideology, which the party said was contrary to its 'harmonious socialist ideology'. The SP in a statement said the three had been given a 'grace period' in the hope that they would have a 'change of heart', which, it said, has ended. In Uttar Pradesh's Rajya Sabha polls held in February last year, seven SP MLAs voted in favour of BJP and NDA-backed candidates, and many of them had since been seen attending BJP events and meeting senior party leaders. On Sunday, while taking action against three, the SP warned the remaining four, stating that no action had been taken against them yet 'because of their good conduct'. 'Samajwadi Party, in the public interest, expels the… MLAs due to their communal, divisive, negative ideology and supporting anti-farmer, anti-women, anti-youth, anti-business, anti-working professionals as well as 'anti-PDA' ideology, as opposed to the politics of harmonious, positive, socialist ideology,' the party said in its statement. It further warned that there would be 'no place for 'jan virodhi' (anti-people) leaders' in the future, and that any 'activities against the basic ideology of the party' would be treated as 'unpardonable'. According to sources, last month, Abhay Singh, Rakesh Pratap Singh, and Vinod Chaturvedi had also met Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Delhi, along with BJP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Seth. Among those expelled, Manoj Kumar Pandey (57) is a three-time MLA from Unchahar and was once considered close to SP chief Akhilesh Yadav. He had also served as a cabinet minister during the previous SP government in the state. He was removed as Chief Whip in the Assembly after the Rajya Sabha cross-voting incident, and has since reportedly been supporting the BJP, including during the last Lok Sabha elections. Abhay Singh (50), a second-term MLA from Gosaiganj in Ayodhya, is known as a muscleman-turned-politician and is considered close to another strongman and former minister Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, who now heads the Jansatta Dal (Loktantrik). Rakesh Pratap Singh (48) is a three-time MLA from Gauriganj in Amethi. He too had rebelled during the Rajya Sabha polls and has since publicly backed the BJP.

'We know where to tighten the nut': Kannada actor Sudeep calls out deputy CM DK Shivakumar's remark over Mekedatu padayatra; here's what he said
'We know where to tighten the nut': Kannada actor Sudeep calls out deputy CM DK Shivakumar's remark over Mekedatu padayatra; here's what he said

Time of India

time15 minutes ago

  • Time of India

'We know where to tighten the nut': Kannada actor Sudeep calls out deputy CM DK Shivakumar's remark over Mekedatu padayatra; here's what he said

BENGALURU: Deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar refused to react to a taunt from Sandalwood actor 'Kiccha' Sudeep , who said the deputy CM 'should have understood realities within the industry' before using certain terms. Shivakumar Saturday refused to engage with the actor saying he does not have to answer 'anybody'. 'You can revisit history at the film chamber to know what I have done for the industry. I need not answer them all; time will answer,' Shivakumar said. During an event on a Kannada television channel, Sudeep had also said: 'Only those in the film industry understand matters within Sandalwood. I respect DK Shivakumar. Cinema is a respectful and dignified he should be careful with what he says.' Sudeep was referring to Shivakumar's comments during the Bengaluru International Film Festival in March where he criticised the film fraternity for the low turnout of stars at the event. On the same stage, he also called out Sandalwood stars for not participating 'in good numbers' in Congress' Mekedatu padayatra in 2022. 'Consider this a request or a warning. If the govt does not cooperate, no film or shooting will happen. We know where to tighten the nuts and bolts and for whom,' Shivakumar had said at the festival. Opposition leader R Ashoka of BJP Sunday supported Sudeep's stand, saying: 'We must speak only of what we know. If we comment on others, people will comment on you.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store