logo
Caste, dynasty and state capital: Three factors that have shaped Andhra Pradesh politics

Caste, dynasty and state capital: Three factors that have shaped Andhra Pradesh politics

Indian Express2 days ago

In Andhra Pradesh, three factors have shaped the contours of contemporary politics: the Capitalist economy, dynastic politics and the question of the state capital. These factors influenced the dominant castes' role in politics and the formation of political parties. Broadly, there are three phases in the political process of Andhra Pradesh: One, the consolidation of the Telugu identity from the early 20th century, resulting in separation from the Madras state in 1953; two, the phase of dominant caste politics from the 1950s right until the bifurcation of the composite state into Telangana and residual AP in 2014; three, the rise of dynastic politics from 2014. In the last phase, political power in the state has been in the hands of three families.
The growing phenomenon of dynastic politics needs to be explained in the historical context of the political economy. The building of irrigation infrastructure from the late 19th century onwards by the colonial rulers in coastal Andhra, like the Dhavaleswaram project across the Godavari, and the Nagarjuna Sagar and Srisailam dams across the Krishna after Independence, turned drought-prone areas into rice bowls. Subsequently, the Green Revolution contributed immensely towards the rise of rich capitalist farmers from dominant castes such as Kamma, Kapu, Rajus and Reddys.
With the spread of Western education during the colonial period, the educated Brahmin community took the lead in creating awareness about the importance of nationalism and the Telugu regional identity. The Andhra Mahasabha came into existence in 1930 to advocate for the rights of the Telugus in the Madras state. In 1937, the Sri Bagh pact was signed with the feudal lords of Rayalaseema, which was more backward compared to the prosperous coastal region. Over time, the linguistic movement intensified, and the prominent Gandhian Potti Sriramulu went on a fast unto death to carve Andhra out from the multilingual Madras state.
Andhra State was created in 1953, and the Reddy community prevailed upon Jawaharlal Nehru to make Kurnool in Rayalaseema the state capital. However, the move was opposed by N G Ranga, a veteran freedom fighter-cum-Congress leader from the Kamma caste of Guntur district. He demanded that Vijayawada be made the capital of Andhra. By 1956, political conditions favoured the creation of Vishalandhra by merging the Telugu-speaking parts of Hyderabad State (Telangana) through the Gentleman's Agreement.
Initially, the electoral fray saw a Congress vs Communists contest, both controlled by the Reddys and Kammas. In fact, from 1956-1983 until the emergence of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Congress was in power. After matinee idol NT Rama Rao floated the TDP, Congress was defeated for the first time in composite AP, and from the 1980s onwards, the state swung between Congress and TDP. From 1956 to 2014, Reddys, who formed 6.5 per cent of the population, held 27 per cent of the political representation and the Kammas, who were 4.5 per cent of the population, held 13 per cent of the political representation. For more than 30 years, the chief minister's position was captured by the Reddys and more than 20 years by Kammas and the rest of the period by the Brahmins, Vaishyas, Velamas and a Dalit.
As a result of the dominant and upper-caste rule of more than five decades, the regional fragmentation was aggravated by the bifurcation of the state, while class and caste politics were suppressed. Elections became costly affairs, with a social deficit of representation created due to the disproportionate representation of the landed dominant castes in political power and the conversion of Hyderabad into a centre of global capital at the cost of opportunities for the local population.
With the bifurcation of AP, the TDP and Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) have emerged as the contenders for political domination in the residual state, with both dominated, in turn, by the dynasty. In 1995, TDP was captured by NTR's son-in-law Chandrababu Naidu, who has been the party president for the last three decades and is now promoting his son Lokesh as the future of the party. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy (Jagan) is the son of the former chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, who died in a helicopter accident in 2009. When the Congress party refused to make him the chief minister, he floated the YSRCP in 2011. The party contested in the 2014 election to encash YSR's political legacy, but that only resulted in opposition status.
The TDP, as a ruling party from 2014 to 2019 and 2024 onwards, has been concentrating on building a highly centralised capital at Amaravati, which is located in the green belt of coastal Andhra, with 34,000 acres of land already acquired. When it was in power from 2019 to 2024, the YSRCP proposed three capitals at Amaravati, Visakhapatnam and Kurnool. However, Jagan's proposal failed in the 2024 election, and Naidu's plan to build a global city is back in full swing. Thanks to TDP joining the NDA coalition, Amaravati is getting support from the centre. Therefore, the entire exercise of global capital has been characterised by Carol Upadhya as the 'reterritorialisation of the deterritorialised Kamma caste' in the form of building a world-class capital.
The writer teaches in the department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Breaking the Engagement' Review: The China-U.S. Divorce
‘Breaking the Engagement' Review: The China-U.S. Divorce

Hindustan Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

‘Breaking the Engagement' Review: The China-U.S. Divorce

'There is no realistic prospect or false nirvana of returning to an amicable and cooperative bilateral relationship,' David Shambaugh writes in 'Breaking the Engagement: How China Won and Lost America.' Few American scholars have a better understanding of China than Mr. Shambaugh. So when the George Washington University professor tells us that the official U.S. strategy of engagement with Beijing is dead—'D-E-A-D'—we had better pay attention. This isn't only a question of state policy. The American people have had enough of China, too. Mr. Shambaugh points to a recent Pew survey, which found that eight out of 10 Americans hold 'unfavorable' views of China, with 42% describing it as an 'enemy.' Only 6% see it as a 'partner.' Certainly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio's announcement that the U.S. would revoke the visas of many Chinese students who are already in this country—and make it much harder for future Chinese students to enroll at American universities—lays bare the fact that the U.S.-China relationship is at a nadir. It would not be overly shrill to say that in many of these cases we're educating the enemy. Mr. Shambaugh, who describes himself as a 'disillusioned former engager,' would agree. (His disillusion, it should be noted, began when the Chinese government banned him from Beijing's many universities and think tanks after he published a long essay in this newspaper in 2015, titled 'The Coming Chinese Crackup.' It took a personal slight to make the scales fall from his eyes, but fall they did.) A China-hawk ever since, Mr. Shambaugh sets out to explain how Washington and Beijing have reached the lowest ebb in their relations since Richard Nixon's 'breakthrough' in 1972. The Sino-American relationship, while always demanding vigilance, has rarely been so nakedly hostile. Mr. Shambaugh's book covers a 75-year period, from 1949—when the Chinese Communists took control of the country—to the second election of Donald Trump in 2024. Although the relationship fluctuated during that time between 'amity' and 'enmity,' as the author puts it, the American desire for engagement was not merely constant but 'axiomatic.' This policy of nonhostility was bipartisan in the U.S. Congress, even as some Democrats chafed at a glossing over by Washington of Chinese human-rights abuses and some Republicans 'questioned the long-term wisdom' of strengthening China through trade and transfers of technology. The roots of America's decadeslong policy of engagement with China lie, says Mr. Shambaugh, in its two-centuries-old 'missionary complex' to change China. America not only sought to trade with China starting in the late 18th century but to 'mold and shape it' in other ways: 'religiously, intellectually, socially, economically, and politically.' The fluctuations in bilateral relations have resulted from the dialectic between 'American paternalism vs. Chinese nationalism.' To put matters at their plainest: We like the Chinese when they're inclined to be more like us, 'conforming to American expectations of liberal development.' But one man can make a tectonic difference. American paternalism prevailed—whether genuinely or as a result of the Chinese faking conformity to extract material advantage—until 2012-13 and the ascent to power of Xi Jinping, the most hardline nationalist leader China has had since Mao Zedong. Until then, China had needed America in what was still a unipolar world, so Beijing was largely vested in playing down discord. The 1989 Tiananmen massacre and the 2008-09 financial crisis—which sparked Chinese disillusion with American economic management—were rare blips in the pre-Xi age, when China was led by less Manichean men: Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao. Mr. Trump, too, has played a decisive role in altering the course of this relationship. His election in 2016 saw growing American hostility toward China grafted atop Mr. Xi's mercantilist, irredentist jingoism. This hard line on China, Mr. Shambaugh observes, was continued by the Biden administration, albeit with differences in nuance and rhetoric. With the second Trump administration, we have Mr. Rubio driving important elements of America's China policy. 'He may be,' writes Mr. Shambaugh—whose book went to press before Mr. Rubio's elevation at State in January—'the single most knowledgeable Member of Congress about China,' who has been 'outspoken and unafraid to take the Xi Jinping regime to task for a variety of its malign actions.' Given our loss of global predominance and primacy—as well as Mr. Xi's drive to make China the global hegemon—the best we can hope for, Mr. Shambaugh concludes, is 'competitive coexistence' with China. The U.S. should expose China to the world at every opportunity. 'The Chinese government's own negative behavior is one of America's greatest assets in its contest with China, and it must be taken advantage of.' We must also retain our global strut and confidence, Mr. Shambaugh says, and not overestimate China, a country with 'multiple systemic weaknesses.' These include an aging population, a stark gender imbalance, a rigid one-party system, widespread repression, massive income inequality, capital flight, a nonconvertible currency, industrial overcapacity and a vindictive control-freak at the helm. No one has the slightest idea what will happen when Mr. Xi dies. Mr. Shambaugh's most radical suggestion is his call to 'consider resurrecting and applying the 'Trading With the Enemy Act,' ' which would take American companies to task for conducting business with China in ways that harm our 'national interest.' The American corporate sector needs to 'understand that some—much—of what it does in China is strengthening an existing rival and a potential adversary.' This is a controversial idea. It's also audacious. We may not stop the Chinese juggernaut in its tracks. But there's no reason to actively help it run us over. Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at NYU Law School's Classical Liberal Institute. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.

'No tragedy despite 1.5 lakh crowd at final': BJP leader BY Vijayendra slams Karnataka govt over stampede, says RCB owners should also provide compensation
'No tragedy despite 1.5 lakh crowd at final': BJP leader BY Vijayendra slams Karnataka govt over stampede, says RCB owners should also provide compensation

Time of India

time38 minutes ago

  • Time of India

'No tragedy despite 1.5 lakh crowd at final': BJP leader BY Vijayendra slams Karnataka govt over stampede, says RCB owners should also provide compensation

BENGALURU: Karnataka BJP President BY Vijayendra on Thursday launched a scathing attack on the Congress-led state government over the Bengaluru stampede that claimed 11 lives and left many injured near the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Calling the tragedy 'avoidable,' Vijayendra demanded accountability from top state leaders and called for their resignation. 'Even before the players had left the Taj West End Hotel, the stampede had occurred near the Chinnaswamy Stadium,' Vijayendra said, questioning the government's decision to proceed with the IPL victory celebrations at Vidhana Soudha despite reports of deaths and injuries. He also criticised deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar for attending the felicitation event at the stadium while the tragedy was unfolding. 'At the time of the incident, ambulances were not arranged. The state government must take full responsibility for the incident that occurred yesterday,' he said. Vijayendra further took issue with the state's decision to order a magistrate inquiry instead of a judicial probe, alleging a lack of transparency and seriousness. 'The chief minister and the ministers have become overly obsessed with publicity,' he claimed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Addressing the compensation announced by the state government—Rs 10 lakh per deceased—Vijayendra demanded more. 'When someone died due to an elephant attack in Kerala, you gave Rs 25 lakh — then for the people of our state who lost their lives, Rs 50 lakh compensation must be given. The RCB owners must also provide compensation. The situation has come to a point where the chief minister, deputy chief ministers, and the Home Minister must resign,' he said, adding that RCB owners must also contribute.

'Kill Me Too': Shashi Tharoor Recounts Pahalgam Attack Survivor's Cry
'Kill Me Too': Shashi Tharoor Recounts Pahalgam Attack Survivor's Cry

NDTV

time42 minutes ago

  • NDTV

'Kill Me Too': Shashi Tharoor Recounts Pahalgam Attack Survivor's Cry

Washington: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, while addressing the Indian community in Washington, DC, recalled the harrowing moment during the recent Pahalgam terror attack when a woman, horrified after watching her husband die, screamed out -- "kill me too," but the terrorists said no and told her to go back and tell the story. Highlighting this, Mr Tharoor emphasised the overwhelming and unconditional support India has received from US lawmakers in the aftermath of the attack. Speaking as part of an all-party Indian parliamentary delegation, Mr Tharoor said the visit's main purpose was to share what India has endured and seek solidarity in the fight against terrorism. "There's been a very wide, impressive cross-section of legislators who met us, spoken to us. I must say our purpose in coming was actually very simple. Lay out what we've been through in India in the last few weeks, with the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam, and seek understanding and solidarity with us on these measures..." Mr Tharoor said. Describing the nature of the engagement, he added, "The relationship with India matters to all these people. The strategic partnership is real. We saw it in practice... There are always things going on. In fact, when our meeting was ending at the Senate, they had to rush off to a vote. There's always something going on, but they found the time for us and they engage with us in a very positive and constructive way." Mr Tharoor also noted the strong bipartisan backing received, stating, "We came prepared for much more by we have a pushback or questions or even some skepticism we found none, there has been an unconditional support extended to us in our struggle against terrorism..." He further highlighted the diverse composition of the Indian delegation and contrasted it with the divisive motives behind the Pahalgam attack. "Seven MPs representing five political parties, seven states and we also have two ambassadors with us, the current and the former ambassador of Washington. We have eight states and three religions... I mentioned religions not because it should matter, but because the terrorists in Pahalgam tried to make religion an issue by asking their victims what their religion was before shooting them between the eyes and performing this heinous crime in a way that there would be survivors to tell the story of their questions... That is the message they wanted to give..." Addressing the community directly, Mr Tharoor urged them to continue voicing their concerns and influencing their elected representatives. "When you speak up to your representatives and you tell them what you'd like to see happening in their positions, on matters that affect all of you and affect your families back home and affect India, that really counts. They are conscious of you, they respect you, you're all very, very high achievers, people who do significant things..." he said. The delegation led by Mr Tharoor arrived in the US on Wednesday. It includes Shambhavi Chaudhary (Lok Janshakti Party), Sarfaraz Ahmed (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), G M Harish Balayogi (Telugu Desam Party), Shashank Mani Tripathi, Tejaswi Surya, and Bhubaneswar Kalita (all from the BJP), Mallikarjun Devda (Shiv Sena), former Indian Ambassador to the US Taranjit Singh Sandhu, and Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora. The visit comes as part of India's broader diplomatic outreach under Operation Sindoor, following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store