BRS says Congress-Jana Sena row diverts focus from governance
BRS leader G. Jagadish Reddy accused the Congress and Jana Sena of staging a coordinated political drama over the denial of permission for Pawan Kalyan’s public meeting, claiming it was a distraction from real issues like farmers’ problems, unemployment, and governance.
Hyderabad: The BRS called the row over the denial of permission for a proposed public meeting by Jana Sena chief and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, and subsequent heated exchanges with the Congress leaders as a political drama jointly orchestrated by the Congress and Jana Sena.
Speaking to reporters, Suryapet MLA and former Minister G Jagadish Reddy said the episode bore all the signs of match-fixing between the ruling Congress and Jana Sena, aimed at creating a political spectacle to shift public attention from pressing issues plaguing the State.
He said both sides were benefiting from a confrontation that overshadowed debates on farmers’ problems, unemployment, students’ issues and governance.
“If permission was denied, the proper course was to approach the court and seek legal remedy. Instead, unnecessary political drama is being created,” he said. He maintained that there was no law-and-order situation that warranted restrictions on the proposed event.
The former Minister also questioned the lack of clarity and maturity in Pawan Kalyan’s statements, stating that the latter failed to specify who obstructed him.
“If someone is denied permission, he should address those responsible instead of making sweeping political remarks,” he said, amid attempts to drag BRS leaders and Telangana intellectuals into the issue.
Jagadish Reddy maintained that the controversy had all the characteristics of a carefully amplified political confrontation rather than a genuine public issue. He remarked that Telangana’s people played a significant role in Pawan Kalyan’s growth and popularity.
“Instead of addressing public issues, a needless political spectacle is being staged,” he said.
He asserted that the controversy had conveniently eclipsed discussions on governance and public welfare, which should have remained the central focus.
