University of Hyderabad 2016-2017 Students’ Union Election Contestation

A few details pertaining to the previous academic year 2016-17 Students’ Union election at the University of Hyderabad is as follows;

ABVP OBCA Whole Panel

ABVP OBCA President and VP



ABVP OBCA Cultural and Sports Secretaries


UFSJ for 2016-2017

Ultimately, this election witnessed the fruitful and victorious emergence of the United Front for Social Justice (UFSJ). UFSJ comprised various student organisations like Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Dalit Students’ Union (DSU), Tribal Students’ Forum (TSF), Bahujan Students’ Front (BSF), Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika (TVV) as electoral alliance partners. Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA) contested as a separate panel entity; though there were high range expectations that ASA will become part of UFSJ. The ASA’s contestation as an independent electoral group of a body made many disappointed, and some even accused ASA by attributing evil motives in various forms.

This election took place after the Univerity of Hyderabad witnessed an unprecedented global attention in the wake of the unfortunate suicide of one of the Ph.D., Research Scholars, i.e., Mr Rohit Vemula. The death of Rohit Vemula attracted global attention towards projected and alleged caste discrimination on the University of Hyderabad campus in particular and on other academic institutions across India, in general.

This 2016-17 election also witnessed an unprecedented focus. One of the focal centres of concern was; why a united student body, which led a glorious revolutionary democratic battle against the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Vice Chancellor Prof Podile Appa Rao, etc. got disunited and contested elections? A large chunk of the University student body, comprised almost all the student organisations, expect ABVP, came under two platforms: ‘Justice for Rohit Vemula & Joint Action Committee For Social Justice’ and led a massive revolutionary democratic battle against the groups mentioned above and Vice Chancellor. This large-scale student organisations activism was expected to retain and sustain during this electoral contestation in the form of electoral alliance. But, such expectations, in reality, saw disunity in electoral collaboration.

By the time of the 2016-17 election, these two platforms; ‘Justice for Rohit Vemula & Joint Action Committee for Social Justice’ activities got declined. Critics observed that the reduction of these two platforms activities had to do something with the ensuring and forthcoming elections for that academic year. All this indicates: politics, though openly not acknowledged, is well mastered and practised by various student organisations and sections. And, it took some time for others to realise realities, especially for those whose expectations were very high after witnessing high-level student activism in the form of Justice for Rohit Vemula, etc.

Allegations and counter allegations also went-on high during this electoral process and immediately after completion of the electoral process also this tempo continued. It was highly alleged that ASA was the prime responsible student organisation for betraying the spirit of possible electoral collusion of all the participated teams in the Justice for Rohit Vemula movement. But, ASA justified and propagated that it fought as an independent electoral body since it got betrayed by other co-students organisations (ASA allegations over disappointment should be ascertained and seen separately)!! But, such charge and propagation of ASA got negated by other co-student organisations, which colluded under UFSJ for electoral gain. Among all the colluded partners under UFSJ; BSF took the lead and criticised ASA, as ASA possessed evil motive, for failing to join UFSJ and making unjustified allegations against UFSJ partners. BSF accused ASA has had hand-in-glove with the Indian National Congress (INC) and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) for not joining the alliance under UFSJ. While BSF expressed such opinion publicly, some others too expressed such opinion in informal ways.

All this indicates that the University range elections, at the University of Hyderabad level, are getting entwined with the mainstream political atmosphere, which was not the case until a few years ago. In fact, in the past, almost all the Student organisations desired to have wider exposure to their political activism in the mainstream media with public attention and concern. Such wish of them started to fruity slowly over the past few years in various respects. The University of Hyderabad’s, unseen alumni role is also prominent, in getting this University into the public limelight over the past few years.


University of Hyderabad 2017 Students’ Union Election Result

The University of Hyderabad’s 2017 Students’ Union election witnessed an interesting trend when compared to previous occasions. Two electoral panels fought elections, namely Alliance for Social Justice (ASJ) and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (AVBP) & Other Backward Classes Federation (OBCF), i.e., ASJ vs ABVP-OBCF panels. There were many collobrating partners within ASJ, like; 

01. Students’ Federation of India (SFI)

02. Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA)

03. Dalit Students’ Union (DSU)

04. Tribal Students’ Forum (TSF)

05. Muslim Students‘ Federation (MSF), and

06. Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika (TVV)

And, on the other side Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and Other Backward Classes Federation (OBCF) have contested in the election as a separate panel.

At another level, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) contested to only the Presidential position.

Thus, all this indicates that except for the position of President, for other positions there was dual contestation between ASJ and ABVP-OBCF panels. For Presidential position there was triangular contest. 

The final result of this election as declared by the University Students’ Union Election Commission is as follows;

Final Result Page One, 2017

Final Result Page Two, 2017

Final Result Page Three, 2017

Note: These details were obtained from the University of Hyderabad’s official page –

For deciding on the Vice Presidential candidates election result declaration a Grievance Committee was constituted. The details of this Committee is as follows;

Grievance Committee Constitution, 2017

The final decison of the Grievance Committee is as follows;

Re-election to VP Position

Thus, as per the Order of the Grievance Committee, re-election is required to be conducted by the University Election Commission. Thus, another level of renewed political activism may hopefully unfold in the coming days to come. How political dynamics will work-out again on the University campus is a matter of subject to watch. 

For another detail look into the University of Hyderabad’s Student Union 2017 Election process, please have a look at;

Students’ Union Election Process 2017-18 at University of Hyderabad

NSUI Contests 2017 Students’ Union Election at University of Hyderabad

National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) an affiliated student wing of the Indian National Congress (INC), a mainstream political party in India started its political path at the Univesity of Hyderabad since 2007 onwards. Though the University of Hyderabad got established in the year 1974 and even-though NSUI is one of the oldest and a prominent student wing of the INC, it took about 32 years to NSUI to venture at this University as an aspiring player. By the time NSUI started to set and make a path at the University of Hyderabad, the Campus political situation was much politicised, and it became a difficult task to carve a niche for itself by finding a space amidst of well-established student organisations. As a result, NUSI even after a decade’s presence at the University of Hyderabad; failed and failing to make an imprint on the Campus politics. NSUI is facing a lot of problems, over the past few years, in many respects at the University of Hyderabad, like; lacking proper leadership, cadre, and vote bank. This student organisation at times had successfully forged and became part of a few electoral alliances to test its luck and success. But, almost every such attempt failed to fructify.

Against this backdrop, it would be interesting to have a look at NSUI’s participation at the University of Hyderabad’s 2017 Students’ Union election process.

To have a look at a few documentary evidence in detail about the 2017 Students’ Union Election Process at the University of Hyderabad, please have a look at one of the previous blog posts on this blog;

Students’ Union Election Process 2017-18 at University of Hyderabad

And, to have a particular and sustained visual outlook into the NSUI campaign process as part of 2017 Students’ Union Election at the University of Hyderabad, please observe below images carefully; 

NSUI Manifesto Page One

NSUI Manifesto Page Two

NSUI Manifesto Page Three

NSUI Manifesto Page Four

These four-page images captured the manifested agenda of the NSUI for its 2017 Election Campaign and aspired strategical hold to have among the student community through electoral success at the University of Hyderabad. Among all these aspects included in the manifesto, the Presidential candidate openly embraced, inclined and highlighted women related issues as a feminist!! Thus, this is a new dimension brought-out and projected by the NSUI and its Presidential candidate during this academic year’s election process. This dimension should also be seen in a few respects, like:

a) whether previous NSUI contestants either at the University of Hyderabad or at any other educational institutions while contesting had inclined to this kind of prominent embrace towards women’s issues?

b) whether NSUI candidates in future at the University of Hyderabad or at other educational institutions while contesting in elections will adopt and sustain this present temped inclination towards women’s issues? 

c) what kind of strategical electoral implications was expected by the current NSUI Presidential contestant, while heavily inclining towards this move in favour of women’s rights? Can this move benefit her in gaining success? Or just she wishes to build her larger life’s political image through such an open embrace of women’s rights?

d) Is the present heavy inclination towards women’s rights and issues by the NUSI contestant is a single agenda or endorsed by all the NSUI University of Hyderabad’s unit as a whole, well in advance?


Anju Rao Campaign Poster FiveAnju Rao Campaign Poster TwoAnju Rao Campaign PosterAnju Rao Poster Campaign FourAnju Rao Poster Campaign ThreeHindi Poster by NSUI and Anju Rao, 2017NSUI Presidential Contestant, 2017Reginal Appeal by Anju Rao and NSUI, 2017


These eight images testified the range of significance projected and campaigned in favour of NSUI’s Presidential contestant Anju Rao K. NUSI dared to contest only to the Students’ Union Presidential position. In fact, there were only a few instances on which NSUI dared to fight to all the posts at the University of Hyderabad, either independently or in alliance with other co-student organisations on the campus. A few reasons behind inability or/and strategical decision to contest only a few positions/one position is based on acknowledged and unacknowledged reasons. Such reasons include, like; failing to find suitable candidates to field as contestants, having a strategic electoral secret understanding with other electoral competitors, financial viability to maintain, lack of sufficient cadre to catch for the campaign and assist contestants, etc. But, openly offered justification, each time would be entirely different by the NSUI team when questioned; why contesting to only a few positions!!?? 


ST Second Tweet in favour of Anju Rao, 2017ST Tweet in favour of Anju Rao, 2017

These two, another set of images depicts the enthusiastic tweets posted by one of the INC prominent leaders at the national level, Shashi Tharoor. These two tweets, and the standard of excited positiveness attributed by the University of Hyderabad’s NSUI cadre, by highlighting these tweets, shows how carefully the INC and NSUI are observing and working for success at the University of Hyderabad’s 2017 Students’ Union election process. But, they knew pretty well that achieving victory at the University of Hyderabad’s Students’ Union Election is not an easy task and may not be achievable also; since they have a lot of understanding on electoral dynamics across India!!  

Rajeev Gowda Tweet, 2017

This another tweet, which was also released and highlighted prominently by the University of Hyderabad’s NSUI team; shows the acknowledged leadership abilities of NSUI’s Presidential contestant Anju Rao K, as posted on Twitter by Rajeev Gowda. In fact, the present NSUI presidential candidate has worked under Rajeev Gowda for a while, as an intern, which had a prime objective role of looking after a Parliamentary affair of a Member of Parliament (MP), i.e., Rajeev Gowda.

The prominent tweets released in favour of the NSUI Presidential contestant is also a peculiar dimension seen during this academic year’s Students’ Union election at the Universiy of Hyderabad. Because the electoral process at the University of Hyderabad never saw this kind of reliance on prominent outside persons. And, it should also be noted, that though the individuals who released tweets could be famous either politically / in INC / MP’s, etc.; their prominence never matters to the larger voting section, expect to NSUI!! But, NSUI itself is a very microscopic entity at the University of Hyderabad over the past one decade!!   

And, most importantly NSUI, when seen through tweets culture, as part of this academic year’s election process sounds to be depending on ‘top-down approach’!! But, this ‘top-down approach’ is not prevalent and never worked much visibly so far at the University of Hyderabad electoral process!! 

The level of tweets bagged by Anju Rao, as a NSUI Presidential candidate, as part of 2017 Students’ Union Election process at the University of Hyderabad is a unique dimension. Previously, during last one decade, though many a time NUSI contested to various positions, never any prominent INC / NUSI, etc. persons posted a tweet, and they were also not highlighted by the Campus NSUI cadre. The present tweet culture is a peculiar dimension emerging this year and that too in particular during election time.

At a certain level of observation, it would be interesting to note, as a matter and source of concluding remark; that the present academic year’s contestant Anju Rao got exposed much individually during the campaign process than her political platform NSUI. Thus, this also indicates that NSUI has failed to portray itself prominently and project its candidate. But, the situation was vice-versa!!

And, on a comparative note, it would also be interesting to make it clear; that two other Presidential contested candidates got highlighted primarily on behalf of their political outfits, like ABVP and SFI (electoral alliance panels led by these organisations). And, other political outfits like ABVP and SFI (their electoral alliance groups), also took immense care that their candidates get projected on behalf of their platforms, but not individually!!

Thus, this present situation of NSUI’s candidate getting personally exposed, may pose a set of hypothetical questions to ponder-over and observe further, if possible and required, by having a sustained observation into a few aspects, like;

a) why and how Anju Rao K started to get more projection within NSUI at the University of Hyderabad??

b) Why previous NSUI contestants never achieved independent stature than their organisation? Is this dynamic best in student politics?

c) Will this kind of an individual’s over projection help any political outfit in any student election, especially in relation to NSUI, and in particular during University of Hyderabad’s Students’ Union elections??

These kinds of innovative hypothetical questions capture the minds of the keen observers of the University of Hyderabad’s annual Students’ Union elections!! And, answers can also found to such hypothetical questions on the dynamic process, which may vary based on wide range of dimensions!! But then, having a look at each aspect concerning its dynamics is necessary for better understanding of political discourse!! 

Note: The inserted images were ascertained from the University of Hyderabad’s NSUI public facebook page. This page can be found on the URL:

Students’ Union Election Process 2017-18 at University of Hyderabad

The University of Hyderabad is among a few Universities in India continuing the spirit of successfully organising Elections to the University Students’ Union. Very few Universities in India have retained and sustained this vision over the years. Elections to the student Bodies in India were discontinued in many States / Universities / Educational institutions due to various factors; one of the prime factors cited for this discontinued tradition was; over politicisation of Campuses and ensured violence in the election process. 

But, elections to the Students’ Union at the University of Hyderabad has a successful history, not having a much negative image. For the most part of University of Hyderabad’s history, over politicisation and violence in elections is not seen so far. And, the politicisation of elections or presence of mainstream political parties student wing affiliations on this Campus started a bit late. Since the strength of this University was also very less; politicisation of this Campus atmosphere also took a long time to achieve. In addition to this, there are many peculiar dynamics involved at this University, when compared with other mainstream politically vibrant Universities in India. 

In this scenario, it would be pertinent to have a look at the University of Hyderabad’s Students’ Union Election 2017-2018 academic year process through a few documentary evidence. Please see the following documentary sources related to the careful and systematic conduct of the 2017-2018 academic year’s Students’ Union election process. 

Election Commission, 2017

Student Bodies Registration, 2017

Election Notification, Schedule and Code of Conduct, 2017

Addendum Students Union Election, 2017

Extension of Time for Withdrawal of Nominations, 2017

List of Contesting Candidates 2017

List of School Board Members

Open Dais Notice, 2017

DSW Guidelines for Open Dias

Electoral Roll, 2017

School Wise Polling Booths List One

School Wise Polling Booths List Two

Classes Suspension on Polling Day

University of Hyderabad’s Students’ Union election process has undergone an evolutionary process over the years in many respects. This evolutionary process at times was based on its own framed principles and guidelines and on other occasions based on the required mandatorily adopted measures as part of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Government of India / University Grants’ Commission, etc. requirements. 

For instance, up to 2005-2006 Students’ Union elections at the University of Hyderabad were held based on its own ‘University Students’ Constitution’. But, since the academic year, 2006-2007 onwards the University Students’ Union elections are undergoing based on the Supreme Court of India’s set forth guidelines – namely J M Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. 

And, in the same way, there is an increase in the number of positions going for elections. Previously elections at University range were held for only six positions, namely; President, Vice-President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary, Cultural Secretary and Sports Secretary. But, over the years, a new set of positions also included, like the election to the positions of; School Board Members, Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), etc.

Thus, all this indicates, at a few Universities, like the University of Hyderabad deepening of democracy is taking place, successfully, by having regular and sustained democratic process through annual elections. But, on the other side, in most other educational institutions across India, this phenomenon is unimaginable, and efforts to revive this tradition is also not going on!!

Lakshmi Parvathi’s Role in Andhra Pradesh Politics

Lakshmi Parvathi (hereafter ‘LP’) is well known as the widow of NTR (Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao). NTR was a successful Tollywood lead actor in his prominent first innings of life and the second innings of his life turned attention towards ‘politics’. His political entry and subsequent success were a record in the Indian political discourse on certain parameters. He was successful in ousting the Indian National Congress (INC) in Andhra Pradesh (AP) on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Surprisingly, within 8-9 months after the establishment of TDP, it was able to capture political power at AP range. And, NTR assumed the role of Chief Minister of AP. Thus, for the first time, a sensational political record was carved by NTR through TDP. Before NTR and TDP; the INC was able to rule AP successfully as a ‘single dominant political player’.

TDP and NTR had thrown a challenge to the ‘INC model of politics’. The ‘INC model of politics’ can be recognized by a few features, like;

01. Extension of patronage to a predominant community/caste at regional level and sustaining political base at the regional level and national level;

02. Co-option of various communities and sections;

03. Extension of Chief Ministerial position at the regional level to a powerful community;

Veteran Indian Political Scientist Rajani Kothari was the first person to coin and figure-out ‘INC model of politics’. Since then, Political Scientists acknowledged the significance of this usage in various modes of analytical discourses.

The INC model of politics also started to witness challenges from powerful land-owning communities since the end of 1960’s. Since the end of 1960’s a few agriculturally prosperous communities, especially in the North Indian zone started to capture political power by successfully launching regional political parties. The success of TDP under NTR and Kamma community’s enthusiastic patronage can also be understood in this direction only. The Kamma community tried its chances of capturing political power under the Communist Party of India (CPI), but failed in its attempts for a few decades. The subsequent success of TDP and NTR fulfilled the ambitions of the Kamma community in the political realm.


NTR developed a relationship with LP during his late age. LP was roughly 38 years of age when she became the second wife of NTR, and NTR was approximately 70 years old by then. The prime reasons behind NTR’s decision to (re)marry LP, hopefully, were due to;

a) his loneliness after first wife’s death

b) his children also got well settled, and they were leading their respective family lives, independently; so, there was no one to look after him at a crucial old age, when he was in desperate need of life’s companion; and

c) he was also alone without having full-fledged participation in politics for a specified duration; during this phase, he developed this relationship with LP, which ultimately led to remarriage.

This third view of opinion was primarily expressed by a senior political journalist in AP, i.e., Inuganti Venkata Rao, in one of his Interviews to a popular online web-source. This interview can be found over;

Senior Editor Inuganti Venkat Rao Exclusive Interview || Talking Politics With iDream Media

Apart from this Interview of senior political journalist Inuganti Venkat Rao, there also exists a broad range of other interviews from various persons at different points of time; who expressed and justified NTR’s remarriage with LP from the above first two points of views of expressions (i.e., a & b). For instance, one of the TDP’s prominent leaders and Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), on a few occasions, Mr. Devineni Rajashekar (Nehru) expressed his view of opinion about NTR’s remarriage with LP from first and second versions of ideas. Devineni Nehru expressed this view in one of his big interviews to journalist Vemuri Radha Krishna on a popular television show called ‘Open Heart with RK.’ In this sequence, Devineni Nehru also recollected his association with TDP, NTR, LP, etc. in another interview;

MSR Hot Seat with Ex MLA Devineni Nehru Part 1 || No.1 News

MSR Hot Seat with Ex MLA Devineni Nehru Part 2 || No.1 News

In this version of Devineni Nehru’s Interview, he recollected and shared his association with LP and about his view of LP’s leadership aspirations, etc. In-fact, Devineni Nehru worked under LP for a brief while, as a politician and MLA.

Thus, all this indicates that NTR had his reasons to choose LP as his second wife at a crucial time of his life.

Now, coming to other perceptions and dimensions on how this remarriage of NTR and LP was perceived by various sections of society, TDP, NTR family members, etc.

First and foremost, the second remarriage of NTR with LP became a sensational news for some while. And, on the AP political scene LP became a center of attraction. There were wide range of comments, satires, opinions, etc. expressed from various vantage points across the political and social circles. But, the negative intensity over the years and days got hiked against the LP, primarily. The prime reason towards this end emanated from NTR’s family members like his sons and daughters families, etc. The focal center of attraction of NTR family in politics revolved in the form of his two son-in-laws, they were; Daggubati Venkateswara Rao & Nara Chandrababu Naidu. These two son-in-laws of NTR led their respective party groups and competitive politics. Since NTR’s remarriage with LP, which was disliked by almost all his family members; the role and actions of these two son-in-law’s became crucial and suspicious.

Thus, in a certain sense, it can be understood that the activities of NTR family members to some extent brought light to LP in the mainstream media, society, and party. It was observed and felt, that the two son-in-law’s of NTR played crucial roles in ousting him from Chief Ministerial position by showing LP as the prime reason behind such decision and action in the August, 1995 political coup!!


In this particular scenario, two questions might attempt to search reasonable answers; they include the following:

01. Why LP became a critical contestation point of negative attraction to the TDP leaders and caders?

02. How and why NTR son-in-laws led such a massive discontent and ousted NTR & made TDP aloof to him?

These two questions are very focused in dealing with various individuals political history under TDP. But, at present, our prime focal attention concentrates only upon LP, if required vis-a-vis other political leaders, like one’s from the NTR family.

The personal, professional, social and family background of LP was projected, seen and perceived in negative mode by various sections of society. In this sequence, a full range of negative news about LP primarily; and NTR, in general, got propagated.

A few aspects of such propagated, promoted and perceived news and opinions are as follows;

01. LP and NTR entered into an unholy martial relationship, though the former’s husband was still alive;

02. LP systematically trapped NTR; as a result, the later was under evil capture of the former;

03. The ultimate aim, goal, and target of LP would be to shift NTR & TDP under her leadership, systematically. Such suspected quality of LP could be a terrible quality of a evil spirited woman (against cherishable noble and humble qualities of women, like being subservient to the husband, etc). But, NTR was not able to realize facts correctly and was under an illusion of LP.

04. Since NTR was aging and developing health complications; the next heir to TDP would be certainly LP; this would be a significant setback to the prospects of TDP’s future, leader’s political ambitions and cader’s enthusiasm.

On the whole, the character assassination of LP went on a massive scale. Same time, there was a certain amount of confusion over the authenticity of various individual views and opinions under circulation among the mainstream media and public. Amidst of such prevalent circumstantial atmosphere, it was rumored and believed on certain grounds, that there were hands and stint of a few NTR family members in this entire scenario; towards this end, fingers were pointed out, primarily towards his son-in-law, that too in particular against Nara Chandrababu Naidu.

Nara Chandrababu Naidu, the youngest son-in-law of NTR; had a systematic personal and professional build-up. A certain part of such build-up also resulted in getting him married to NTR’s youngest daughter. After marriage with NTR’s daughter, Chandrababu Naidu had his plans and wished to be successful further in politics, first in the Indian National Congress (INC) and later by shifting his political allegiance to the family party TDP. Ultimately, he was successful in realizing his dreams and wishes under TDP over the years. The effective rolling path of Chandrababu Naidu in TDP – it was observed, rumored and believed; resulted in maintaining different kinds of strategic roles even after NTR’s remarriage with LP. Since NTR’s remarriage with LP in 1993, it was found, that particular diplomatic silence was maintained by a few NTR family members, keeping in view upcoming elections to the AP Legislative Assembly. Not only NTR family members, even parts of TDP, who were uncomfortable with NTR’s style of functioning also maintained silence for a right time to take proper decision. After massive electoral victory to TDP in December, 1994; NTR assumed the Chief Minister position of AP amidst of grandeur. But, within a few months in August, 1995 a massive political coup rebelled against NTR’s leadership and the prime reason shown towards this end was that LP was interfering in the affairs of TDP and government. There were various kinds of interpretations and views expressed at different points of time on ‘what kind of reasons and actions’ resulted in ousting NTR from the Chief Ministerial position and led to rechristening the same in favor of Nara Chandrababu Naidu. Among all such views and expressions, one of the prominent inclination was role and interference of LP in TDP and government.


There developed three primary political power centers within TDP since its inception; they include NTR visibly as principal founder and first leader. Apart from NTR, at times sidetracking NTR also, another two power centers colluded and competed, they were the two son-in-laws of NTR; Dr. Daggubathi Venkateswara Rao and Nara Chandrababu Naidu.

The successful emergence of LP, as a family member of NTR, started to pose a challenge to the political power centers of his son-in-law’s. As a result, the two son-in-laws of NTR perceived LP as a threat to their political aspirations and continuation of their base in the TDP. As a result, these persons, in collusion with other NTR family members and other sources within TDP and outside TDP had masterminded to put a check to NTR & LP. This master political plot ultimately resulted in the bitter outbreak of political coup of August, 1995.

On all pragmatic, technical, legal and constitutional grounds this August, 1995 political coup was a successful one. NTR, the founder, and pride asset of TDP lost his base, primarily due to his remarriage with LP!! After this bitter, sour political coup, NTR lived only for a few months. Ultimately NTR breathed his last in January, 1996. After the sudden tragic demise of NTR, in the subsequent duration, the consolidated political base in favor of Nara Chandrababu Naidu as Chief Minister of AP and as supreme leader of TDP was established firmly.

Same time, the role and prospects of LP got diminished considerably and ultimately led to her disappearance on the political scene as a prominent political center of attraction. Thus, re-emergence of political base and centre within TDP rechristened in favor of Nara Chandrababu Naidu. The August, 1995 political coup, sidetracked, in due course of time various political power centers in TDP. All such power centers ‘existing and aspired to’ were among the family members of NTR only, like; two son-in-laws, two sons of NTR, LP as the second wife of NTR!! Among these existing and aspiring political power centers, LP got a humiliating oust, first in the form of NTR’s rejection as Chief Minister and TDP’s President, and then in the second phase by losing her political base completely in AP (after NTR’s death).


Thus, all this indicates that the leadership qualities of LP marched under two prime fronts, they include;

01. Since LP’s remarriage with NTR to NTR’s death, and
02. Since NTR’s death onwards;

In the first innings of LP’s political career, she was an undisclosed active insider having ability to favour and disfavour individual persons and sections by influencing NTR’s leadership decision capabilities; this role of her posed a serious check to the NTR’s son-in-laws, primarily. This inside interfering suspected nature and abilities of LP was shown, as one of the prime reasons for ousting NTR from TDP in August, 1995.

The prominent and direct role of LP started since NTR’s death in January, 1996. And, her active political career went-on during 1996-1999. Thus, though the direct leadership qualities of LP started to bud since 1996-1999, ultimately her leadership failed to blossom.

After NTR’s death, LP led a new political outfit in the form of NTR-TDP; the original TDP as established by NTR, after August, 1995 political coup, as per the Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines was recognised as a separate and original entity under the leadership of Nara Chandrababu Naidu. There was a tussle between NTR led TDP, and Nara Chandrababu Naidu led TDP sections over TDP assets and party symbol, etc. Ultimately, the ECI favoured and proclaimed verdict that all the assets, party symbol, etc. would be allocated to the TDP led by Nara Chandrababu Naidu as President. This ECI decision was seen as a humiliation by NTR-TDP section. Ultimately, NTR-TDP emerged as a separate political sect. After NTR’s death, LP led this NTR-TDP as a forefront leader. LP was able to become Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of AP after NTR’s death. Her role in the AP Legislative Assembly as MLA can also be analysed separately and in combination with the wider AP political discourse.

During the summer of 1996, Lok Sabha general elections held. Participation in this election was a first and prime challenge to the NTR-TDP to face and prove. The ultimate result of 1996 Lok Sabha elections was bitter and led to almost closer of NTR-TDP. During this election campaign and since 1995 August political coup onwards LP started to brand and accuse Nara Chandrababu Naidu as a cheater and traitor and pleaded the voters to reject the false TDP under Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s leadership and extend patronage to her NTR-TDP outfit!!

On the other side, Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s election campaign, role, activism, etc. as Chief Minister and as President of TDP started to get well consolidated. Nara Chandrababu Naidu had an active base from ground level with full leaders and cadre presence, support from Kamma community, financial viability, a significant media support, a section of NTR family member’s patronage, etc.

LP as leader of NTR-TDP failed to project and build a proper political base, on pragmatic grounds; instead, she showed an individual (Nara Chandrababu Naidu) as a traitor and sought political support. LP failed to carve political space, even when opposition party INC was weak in AP, which witnessed a humiliating massive defeat in 1994 general election to the AP Legislative Assembly.

At a certain point in time, a comparative analysis of LP and Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s leadership qualities need analysis; because LP attempted to pose a challenge to the Nara Chandrababu Naidu led TDP. And, Nara Chandrababu Naidu led TDP also faced and dealt with LP led TDP. The final result oriented in favour of Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s leadership and LP led NTR-TDP started to vanish from the AP political scene entirely.

NTR-TDP under LP’s leadership failed to grab a significant vote share either from INC or TDP led by Nara Chandrababu Naidu. At the same time, this outfit cannot dare to have an electoral alliance with INC also; because TDP’s birth took place as an anti outfit to INC!! Thus, on all pragmatic sides, NTR-TDP under LP’s leadership failed to carve a niche on the AP political scene. But, at some point in time LP wished to have an electoral alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). She even got succeed in posting an alliance with BJP during 1998 mid-term Lok Sabha elections. But, the terms and conditions of this partnership were unsatisfactory to NTR-TDP with regard to seats sharing. Ultimately, this electoral allied union of BJP & NTR-TDP failed to secure electoral victory.

The long-standing leadership qualities and role of Nara Chandrababu Naidu, primarily since his college days as a student leader and then as a full-fledged politician under INC and TDP frayed well in sustaining his base after August, 1995 political coup and subsequent NTR’s death. But, one of the prime negative qualities and features of Nara Chandrababu Naidu was lack of oratory skill. On the other side, LP was blessed abundantly with oratory skills but lacked other practical expertise and resources like; long-standing political experience, lack of money on a comparative basis, proper base and support from the ground level, etc. Thus, ultimately, the political scene tilted in favour of Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s leadership in capturing and sustaining his base in TDP.

LP lost in both cases, in the first, as an inside influencer of politics as the wife of NTR and later as leader of NTR-TDP.

The final AP Legislative Assembly results of 1999 routed NTR-TDP completely.

Thus, LP lost her political base in the two phases, as mentioned above.


But, in the subsequent duration, after a few years, LP started to appear on the AP political scene, now and then, as a countering opponent to the TDP (especially to the Nara Chandrababu Naidu leadership and to a few NTR family members). This new role appeared as a useful revenge source to the opposition parties, like Yuvajana Shramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP).

This new avatar of LP can be seen and analysed as; taking ultimate revenge against TDP and NTR family which humiliated her. But, her actions continue under the guise as taking a politically right stand against malicious, untrustworthy Nara Chandrababu Naidu and other NTR family members!!By posting as taking a politically correct position; she is favouring the opposition political parties and fulfilling personal revenge!!

Thus, her present leadership, which had two unsuccessful phases previously, under TDP and NTR-TDP; started to have another phase which assists the opposition parties, primarily YSRCP. She is at present an active participant of YSRCP activities, as a regular Party member.

LP was not in a position to forge a pragmatic electoral alliance as leader of NTR-TDP during 1990’s, especially with INC, due to a prevalent political stance. That’s an understandable position in those days. But, LP after ceasing to be the leader of NTR-TDP started to pose a pragmatic ‘resonating-alliance’ with the opposition parties like YSRCP. The prime reason behind this new found alliance is based on; common enemies of TDP were becoming friends, i.e., YSRCP & LP!! This new political strategy is a shadow political step of LP taken not as a leader of NTR-TDP, but on personal grounds!!

Perceptions over Chiranjeevi’s First Phase of Political Innings

Chiranjeevi entered politics as a leading Tollywood star in the year 2008. He chose and opted to enter politics when his professional career in the Tollywood started to continue in a slow mode. There were three varied opinions made and making air among the public; why and how Chiranjeevi chose to venture into the political career? They are as follow;

01. The enthusiastic chanting slogans of Chiranjeevi’s fans since 1990’s end or early 2000 decade onwards as ‘future Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh’; exposure to such kind of atmosphere from fans and others must have developed and installed aspirations and ego to enter into politics and prove himself!!

02. Though Chiranjeevi, his family, and his community-acquired large scale fame through Tollywood in the Telugu and Indian society; in reality, such popularity resulted in bringing some problems in society too from a few established families and persons, like from those in politics, etc. Hence, he visualized that having a successful venture and sustenance in politics can shift edge in his favor, which again can result in producing tangible results to him, his family, his people/community, etc.

03. And, the last, but not the least; having acquired and witnessed satisfactory innings in life through Tollywood; must have made himself to realize and gain another level of competent innings in society and politics. Thus, he must have opted to enter politics to have next level of strong innings.

Critics looked at this third dimension from human beings inbuilt desire to acquire and experience one desire after the other in a sequential mode as per the personal calling and aspirations. Anyhow, this last and third level of aspiration can also be seen and understood independently or in relation to the above other two factors.


But, the ultimate question comes to the focus is; how to understand his political entry and how to judge his abilities and capabilities in this domain?

Chiranjeevi launched Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) just before nine months to go for elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies. This step of him was seen as an aspirational desire to break the record of Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao (NTR), the founder of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) who established and captured Chief Ministerial position in nine months after the establishment of TDP!! But, Chiranjeevi rejected such observations and claimed not to interlink and perceive real life and political things with ‘film breaking records type’!!?? Thus, he pleaded, in interactions to the media that such observations of attempting to break the records of NTR & TDP were entirely false and unfair equations.

Even before the launching of PRP by Chiranjeevi much positive uproar was aired in the mainstream media and society that the Andhra Pradesh polity and society may march towards an unprecedented trend; putting a check to the much dominant Reddy & Kamma castes in politics. Towards this direction, a few started to visualize this pattern and shift from PRP/Chiranjeevi & Kapus as a step towards achieving and bringing social justice.

Those who aspired that a change may creep-in with the launch of PRP and Chiranjeevi under Kapu’s majoritarian vote bank and resources expected that marginalized communities like Scheduled Castes (SC’s), Scheduled Tribes (ST’s), Backward Classes (BC’s), etc. may get adequate space in this new discourse. But, such aspirations, in reality, got shattered. There was a wide range of acquisitions and allegations that the PRP under Chiranjeevi’s leadership turned out to be another mainstream political party, without bringing any alternative political culture. Towards this ends, a wide range of allegations was made, like that the PRP leadership sold out party constituencies tickets to wealthy and powerful sections; betraying ‘social justice’ principle.

Chiranjeevi before and after launching of PRP made statements prominently that his PRP’s sole goal was to bring about ‘social justice.’ Thus, ‘Social Justice’ became a caption of PRP. And, masses aired expectations from such vantage points only. Ultimately, a full range of discontent ventilated by those who believed that PRP failed to stand up to the expectations of the ‘social justice’ principle. Media prominently covered such dissatisfaction.

Thus, from this blog post, it can be noted that in the first category, a few sections had an objective reading of what factors must have driven Chiranjeevi to consider political entry. In the second subsequent turn, after the launch of PRP, how masses got dissatisfied with their perceived breach of ‘social justice’ principle.

Thus, all this indicates, that the masses possess an objective and subjective reading of high profile persons and ultimately develop their ‘justification‘ in analysing them in relation to projected and promoted ideas and actions.

Note: This blog post can be read along with/in relation to a few other previous blog posts posted on this blog, like;

Tollywood Lead Actors’ and Political Aspirations: An Outlook into Three Generations

First Phase of Innings: Acting and Political Dynamics of Chiranjeevi & Pawan Kalyan

Kapu’s Dual Edged Aspirations

Chief Ministerial Position: A Recognistion of Caste Domination


National Seminar on ‘Politics of Inclusion: Empowering Minorities in India’

The Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad organized and hosted a National Seminar on ‘Politics of Inclusion: Empowering Minorities in India,’ during September 5-6, 2017.

On the sidelines of this National Seminar, I had presented a Paper entitled ‘Political Strategies and Deliberations over Muslim Backward Classes Inclusion: The Distinctive Case in Andhra Pradesh & Telangana.’ The abstract of this Paper is as follows;


The Concepet Note of this National Seminar is as follows;

Politics of Inclusion

The tentative Programme Schedule of this National Seminar is as follows;

Programme schedule of Minority Politics

Mohammed Ghouse, Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad was the prime source behind organising this National Seminar. But, technically the credit was acknowledged under Sri Chandrasekhara Rao as Convenor of this National Seminar.