Copycat disciple Revanth sticks to replicating Guru Naidu’s template
A series of policy, planning and branding similarities between the Congress government in Telangana and the TDP-led NDA government in Andhra Pradesh has sparked political debate. From new cities and land drives to vision documents, the overlap raises questions about originality and intent.
Hyderabad: What is common between the Congress government in Telangana and the Telugu Desam Party-led NDA government in Andhra Pradesh?
More than an odd coincidence, the overlap is now hard to ignore. From new city projects and land acquisition drives to branding exercises and long-term vision documents, the two governments, with a Guru and disciple at the helms, appear to be tracing the same template, raising sharp questions about originality and intent, particularly of the disciple.
Sample this. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has aggressively pushed Amaravati City for years. In Telangana, Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy is now making a similar pitch, placing Future City before investors. Both projects revolve around expansive city-building exercises that depend on acquiring vast tracts of land from farmers and others, a model that has already drawn strong criticism.
The Naidu government acquired 33,000 acres for Amaravati, before approving an additional 16,666 acres last month. Telangana’s push is strikingly similar. Future City, proposed across 30,000 acres in Rangareddy, is being showcased as the State’s next big idea. This comes after announcements of scrapping Pharma City, though the State government has since told the High Court that it is going ahead with what it calls the Green Pharma City.
The previous BRS government had already secured nearly 12,000 acres for Pharma City. The present government now wants to build Future City on the same land while seeking more from farmers, igniting resentment. The Pharma City Vyathireka Porata Samithi has urged investors at the Global Summit to stay away, warning that farmers were misled after being promised that the Pharma City project would be scrapped.
While both the TDP-led NDA government and the Congress government defend their massive land acquisition sprees in the name of new cities, opposition parties argue that the real beneficiaries are real estate interests cloaked in development jargon.
Branding offers another parallel. After bifurcation in 2014, Naidu marketed his State as the Sunrise State, promoting it extensively. Revanth Reddy’s version is Telangana Rising, showcased prominently at the Global Summit. The resemblance is evident, raising questions about whether Telangana is crafting a fresh identity or borrowing an existing playbook.
Forget branding, the economic strategy is even closer. Chandrababu Naidu created three regional zones for Andhra Pradesh, dividing the State into the Visakha, Amaravati and Rayalaseema economic regions. Revanth Reddy has also adopted a three-zone model, calling it his own, comprising the Core Urban Region Economy, Peri Urban Region Economy and Rural Agriculture Region Economy, aimed at pushing Telangana towards a US$ three trillion economy.
The investment summit pattern also repeats itself. Andhra Pradesh organised the CII Partnership Summit in Visakhapatnam last month and termed it a grand success. Telangana followed with the Telangana Rising Global Summit a month later. Andhra Pradesh claimed MoUs worth Rs.13,25,716 crore, while Telangana reported commitments of Rs.5.75 lakh crore. Both governments projected these numbers as breakthroughs, though critics argue that MoU counts are not always indicators of real investment.
Even the long-term vision documents fall into the same pattern. Chandrababu Naidu released Vision 2020 for the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. Nearly 25 years later, Revanth Reddy has unveiled the Telangana Rising 2047 vision document.
One overlap may be coincidence, two may raise eyebrows and three may hint at a trend. But when the similarities extend across policies, planning, branding and even vision, the contrast fades and the impression strengthens that the disciple is drawing heavily from the Guru, only without offering anything visibly distinct or new.
