Letter of Dissent or of Discreet Assent?
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
The Hans India
(01-06-2025)
{‘Family name brings
loyalty’ but money greases the machinery. Moreover, political expenses are high
and rarely are to be made transparent. Kavitha may reclaim space in shifting
political sands provided she depends not on name or money but on timing, emotional
connect, and clarity of purpose. Better if Kavitha demonstrates these} - Editor
synoptic note
Political and strategic
analysts were absorbed by inexplicable curiosity when MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha
dispatched a handwritten letter to her father and BRS chief, K Chandrasekhar
Rao, the architect of the 13-year separate Telangana movement, its victorious
culmination, and triumphantly becoming the state’s first Chief Minister.
The content of the
missive and its mysterious leak to social media was perceived as calculated
planning and influenced by pressure groups. The whole drama subtly equates to
political delinquency, intellectual immaturity, and lack of professional
apprenticeship, as also an unseasoned bid for political space. The ‘explicit
and implicit messages’ in the letter are simply enthralling.
Kavitha’s exquisite
appeal to her ‘Dear Daddy’ seeking direction, clarity, and about her future in
BRS, principally in the ‘light of hope against hope’ of returning to power is
ambiguous.
Beneath the emotional
and persistent question, ‘who should occupy the throne, if and when power
returns?’ is heedlessly quizzical. While couched in sentiment, it hinted at
deeper currents of ambition, uncertainty, and strategic recalibration-a change
in the mindset.
Whether ‘the letter to
daddy’ was an ‘act of dissent or one of discreet assent’ remains a
million-dollar question.
In Indian political
history, Indira Gandhi, known for her iron grip over governance, mastered the
choreography of party dynamics. For her ‘dissent was not always an enemy’ but a
precisely and carefully honed tool wielded with ‘discreet assent.’ She engineered
historic splits in the Congress Party, not out of helplessness but as a
calculated strike to neutralize internal resistance and reassert her
indomitable dominance.
Her way of turning
discord into strategic advantage and emerging not weakened but stronger with
every confrontation, remains unparalleled. Perhaps KCR employs a similar
strategy.
Indira Gandhi’s shrewd
orchestration of party dynamics was executed through loyalists, who owed their
rise to her patronage. That was the era of ‘makeshift, tailor-made dissidents’
carefully crafted figures deployed with ‘just enough freedom to roam freely in
a vehicle’ yet with the brakes and steering firmly in Madam’s grip. No matter
how far they ventured, geographically or politically, they consistently ended
up parking in her garage--‘A dissent by design: Either an assembled dissent or
descent on a leash.’ She nurtured parallel voices to maintain leverage within
the party.
Kavitha’s assertion
that, ‘KCR is my leader and will not accept other leadership’ was a significant
parallel.
‘Anguished over the
developments in BRS, I had written the letter for its betterment,’ Kavitha
maintained.
The letter, couched in
strong tones of introspection, accountability, and future direction, has sent
ripples through the BRS--reading like a rebellious call and critique of
leadership style and strategic missteps. Scratch beneath, and it evokes
something more complex and familiar--a maneuver reminiscent of the Indira era’s
engineered dissent with discreet assent, echoed, perhaps, in today’s political
choreography. Rightly or not, the letter could well be a calibrated tool to
project an ‘illusion of democratic introspection’ within a tightly controlled
party structure. Or maybe not!
Out of power is not at
all devoid of control on BRS to a spirited KCR. His political acumen, seldom
understood even by his self-styled closest associates, often thrives on silence
and surprise. Like Indira, KCR has structural and embedded networks, loyalties,
and timing. Controlled dissidence is a way to make BRS seem alive with ideas
and disagreements, while still being driven from the same garage.
Whether Kavitha
‘manages to sit firmly in the driving seat’ or ‘leaves the steering and brakes
to her daddy’ with static boundaries, is anyone’s guess as of now. However, the
letter may possibly allow BRS to dilute public frustration.
Indian women into the
halls of politics, and luck and competence favored, into governance have,
often, strategically navigated journeys. Contemporary political history is
dotted with stories of women wielding power, as parliamentarians, and as Chief
Ministers, either directly, or through manipulation, proxy, and emotional capital,
or otherwise. Factors like family legacy, godfathers, caste arithmetic, money
power, charisma, emotional appeals, sheer defiance, developing on their own
were reasons behind their entry and political ascent.
During the freedom
struggle most women entered via ideology, not for power, irrespective of
shadows of male leaders or alongside husbands or quite often on their own.
Direct manipulative tactics for power were rare. The Nehruvian era and its
immediate aftermath saw the symbolic, yet significant inclusion of women in
politics.
The first woman Chief
Minister, a freedom fighter, Sucheta Kripalani, stands as the best example as a
torchbearer for future women CMs.
Freedom fighter,
diplomat, and politician Vijay Lakshmi Pandit was the first woman to have been
appointed as president of the UN General Assembly. Hyderabad’s very own
Sarojini Naidu was the first woman AICC president and the first woman governor
after Independence.
The real shift began
with the emergence of Indira Gandhi, apparently a ‘compromise Prime Minister’
initially. But ‘astonishingly Indira Gandhi showcased the power and instance of
a woman’ in the ‘male chauvinistic political ecosystem’ to become a democratic
dictator and authoritarian leader. Eventually, women domination in Indian
politics, especially during the 1980s and later, from other parts of the
country, backed by family dynasties, evolved.
In several states,
women occupied pivotal political positions as CMs, governors, speakers,
diplomats, among other such privileged positions. Some of them rebelled against
the parent party leadership and got their due share. Failures are equally
significant numbers. But then that is politicking. Some despite not being in
top position officially either as Prime Minister or Chief Minister, wielded
extensive power. Sonia Gandhi, who was the ‘de-facto center of power,’ was
never its constitutional face. Priyanka Gandhi is emerging on similar lines.
Either the ‘attempt in vain’ of YSR Sharmila, or the attempt of BRS Kavitha,
may be seen as battles of equal perception and relevance.
The saga of women in
politics-the ‘dance of democracy’ continues with a blend of tradition and
rebellion, of backroom calculations and front-stage charisma. ‘Manipulations’
may vary, but the ‘mission to claim power’ remains undiminished with ‘meteoric
ascents and humiliating downfalls.’
Kavitha’s political
entry had a powerful legacy, being daughter of a towering personality,
unchallenged leader of the statehood movement and its first Chief Minister. She
enjoyed early visibility through cultural diplomacy (like Telangana Jagruthi)
and a brief MP stint.
Now her letter to daddy
has made people believe unequivocally that she ‘rebelled and rebelled
earnestly.’ Her maiden attempt to prove this was the formation of the
‘Singareni unit of Telangana Jagruti’ and appointing ’11 area coordinators’,
obviously hinting at: ‘Well, I Shall not relent and want clarity on my future
come what may.’ Kavitha further claimed that there was a proposal to merge BRS
with the BJP.
It all depends now on
Kavitha and her committed team that is managing followers, rallies, and
campaign infrastructure.
‘Family name brings
loyalty’ but money greases the machinery. Moreover, political expenses are high
and rarely are to be made transparent. Kavitha may reclaim space in shifting
political sands provided she depends not on name or money but on timing, emotional
connect, and clarity of purpose. Better if Kavitha demonstrates these.
In politics, lineage
can grant entry but not necessarily acceptance. In Telangana, a political
realignment is not unthinkable with murmurs of leadership changes in the BRS,
INC and BJP--either in one, two or perhaps all.
Fathers and godfathers,
who propel their kin and protégés into the ‘unpredicted stormy ocean of
politics’-caution is indispensable please!
Political nurturing
must go beyond entitlement. It must equip them with skills of listening,
learning, and leadership-not a jolly ride on borrowed credibility.
The ‘surname may open
the doors, but only substance will keep them in the race.’ Hence, it is true
that ‘politics shall be treated as an honorable task and not a light-hearted
game’ as often professed by K Chandrasekhar Rao.
