PROFESSIONS, CHECKERED CAREER, AND LESSONS-PART EIGHT (From Librarian to CPRO to CM KCR) ....... A Journey from Khangi School to Center for Excellence : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 PROFESSIONS, CHECKERED CAREER, 

AND LESSONS-PART EIGHT

(From Librarian to CPRO to CM KCR)

A Journey from Khangi School to

Center for Excellence

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Prefatory Note

(These reflections arise from close observation and lived experience during a defining phase in the history of Telangana. They are offered with deep respect for Kalvakuntla Chandrashekhar Rao, a leader of rare intellectual depth, political courage, and unwavering commitment to the idea of Telangana. What follows is not merely recollection, but an attempt to record how vision, resolve, and governance converged to shape a people’s destiny.

While this narrative draws upon a professional journey that spans eleven organizations and multiple institutional settings, it consciously begins with the final and most consequential phase of that journey. A brief reference to my academic formation is included at the outset only to provide essential context, before the account moves directly into the concluding chapter of my professional life.}

As CPRO to CM and observing him from close quarters as the one whose thought process always was much ahead of many of his counterparts, as well as, either friends or foes of him, I found from time to time, time and again that, KCR was an ‘Embodiment of Civility and Statesmanship.’ One such occasion where he explicitly displayed this was, greeting and congratulating Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the eve of laying foundation stone for the Central Vista Project in December 2020. Several eyebrows were raised over CM’s pleasant gesture. 

Documenting such instances I wrote in an article then that, in a vibrant parliamentary democracy, the relationship between PM and CMs shall be based on the spirit of Cooperative Federalism. A statesmanlike political leader, that too of the stature of CM KCR, naturally adheres to it in true letter and spirit. When it comes to extend support, he did so, and, if it has to be differed, he never hesitated. Democracy pre-supposes that differences are to be on issue based.

Despite differences on certain issues, KCR never indulged in any personal attack on the PM or any other leader. KCR supported if policies initiated by the Centre were in good faith and for the welfare of a major section of the society. This was precisely the reason why KCR supported policies like the formation of NITI Ayog, GST, Demonetization, Pulwama issue etc.  When the Centre failed to keep up its word in GST releases openly objected to it. He unhesitatingly emphasized the need to strengthen cooperative federalism so that the country can emerge as a strong nation.

He equally opposed the Farm Bills, certain economic and fiscal policies of Modi. That was statesmanship one should learn from KCR. Another dimension of KCR’s leadership that I had the occasion to closely observe, sometimes directly as CPRO and sometimes from the interpretative distance that my role demanded, was his unmistakable readiness to take a firm and public stand whenever he felt that a policy direction or administrative move was fundamentally against people’s interest or federal spirit. His opposition in such moments was not casual disagreement or rhetorical positioning.

It arose from studied conviction and was expressed with unusual clarity and force. He believed that silence in the face of perceived injustice in governance amounts to indirect consent, and therefore he chose articulation over accommodation. When he decided to make a point of disagreement, he did so with layered preparation: constitutional, administrative, and moral. What struck me repeatedly was that, his criticism would be preceded by deep internal review and followed by open public explanation.

KCR did not prefer cryptic signaling. He preferred full exposition. In his view, leadership carried the responsibility not only to support what is right but also to resist what is wrong, and to do both in a manner understandable to ordinary citizens. His press interactions and assembly interventions during such phases were not merely political responses. They were structured arguments placed in the public domain. He always believed that Politics is a Task not Game. There was also a distinctive emotional honesty in his dissent.

Even while being sharply critical, he would underline that disagreement with a policy or a regime should not be mistaken for disregard toward institutions. From my close position as his CPRO, I found that, he took care to separate constitutional offices from policy disagreements, and governance direction from national interest. This balance between intensity and institutional respect was a notable feature. He would often express regret that circumstances required such strong criticism, yet assert that public duty demanded it.

His oppositional articulation was also accompanied by an alternative vision. He rarely stopped with rejection alone, but would outline what he believed should be done instead. This constructive counter-positioning, I observed while handling related communications as his CPRO helped convert protest into proposal. He invited intellectuals, youth, farmers, professionals, and public thinkers into the conversation, expanding dissent into democratic participation. The rider was, whom to invite was entirely his choice. In that sense, his opposition itself became an instrument of engagement rather than mere confrontation.

Seen in continuity with the earlier aspects of his governance, institution building, empowerment models, and example-led administration, this readiness to openly challenge what he considered harmful formed another essential layer of his leadership character. It reinforced a simple but powerful message: governance is not only about designing what must be done, but also about courageously questioning what must not be done. From where I stood as CPRO to CM, this trait added a distinct edge to his public leadership profile, conviction expressed without hesitation, and dissent articulated as a democratic duty rather than a political tactic.

In this context, it is also necessary for me to record, with balance and responsibility, that several of KCR’s strongest expressions of dissent were directed toward the policies and functioning style of Prime Minister Modi and the Union Government during that period. From what I observed in my tenure as CPRO to CM, his criticism was not personality-driven but policy-driven, though articulated with unmistakable sharpness. He felt that certain central approaches were inconsistent with federal balance and people-centric priorities, and therefore chose to state his disagreement openly rather than diplomatically dilute it.

Even at moments of intense criticism, he would frame his remarks around governance consequences rather than personal hostility, a distinction he was careful to maintain. I particularly recall that when he addressed the media or spoke in legislative forums on these matters, his tone combined regret with resolve: regret that such confrontation had become necessary in a democracy, and resolve that public interest must override protocol comfort.

As CPRO to CM KCR, I was mindful in such phases that the communication must preserve both firmness and dignity, conveying that principled disagreement with the Prime Minister’s policies, as expressed by KCR, arose from his conviction about national direction and state rights, not from impulse. This ability to be courteous in reference yet unambiguous in position formed another revealing element of his example-led leadership style.

At this stage, before I proceed further with my association and KCR’s governance across several other models and dimensions, it would be both appropriate and necessary for me to pause briefly and focus on one defining aspect of his leadership that I had the opportunity to observe closely, his consistent practice of leading by example. This deserves a separate and deliberate narration because it was not an occasional trait but a governing method in itself.

Much more remains to be discussed about policy architecture, administrative innovation, and institutional restructuring in the chapters that follow. However, without first understanding this personal leadership style, how example often preceded instruction and action reinforced intent, the fuller picture of what follows would remain incomplete. It is therefore here that I consider it useful to dwell for a while on this distinctive feature before moving ahead into the wider and more layered canvas of his governance approach.

In the course of my tenure as CPRO to CM, one important dimension of governance that unfolded before me, sometimes through direct involvement and sometimes through close observation, was his distinctive way of leading by example. It was not confined to administrative orders or policy announcements. It was a lived style of leadership where action preceded instruction and personal engagement reinforced public purpose. I repeatedly noticed that he preferred demonstration over declaration.

One of the ideas he consistently emphasized was that employment should not be viewed narrowly as a government post but more broadly as assured and dignified livelihood. In many internal discussions and public articulations that I handled or interpreted, this distinction surfaced again and again. Governance, in his view, must enable people to stand on their own feet rather than wait in line for limited formal jobs. This orientation shaped the tone and substance of communication that I was expected to carry forward, either drafting or refining or simply transmitting his intent faithfully.

The welfare state, as he practiced it, was not a slogan but an operating principle. Protection of the vulnerable, risk coverage for the exposed, and opportunity creation for the capable: these strands were woven together in his approach. Many welfare measures were designed not only to provide support but also to generate confidence and economic activity at the grassroots. The underlying belief was that, when insecurity is reduced, initiative increases. I was communicating this idea either through official channels or through interpretative narratives as published articles. Despite my critical approach at times CM KCR never took objection which shows his greatness and tolerance to critique.

KCR’s stress on rural strengthening was another area where leading by example became visible. Rather than treating villages as beneficiaries, he treated them as production and livelihood centers. Activities connected with environmental improvement, local infrastructure, traditional occupations, and community assets were positioned as dignity-restoring exercises. My PR Professional Team had to present these not as isolated schemes but as parts of a larger intent to energize local economies and social confidence.

He also showed a consistent preference for what he called social insurance over episodic relief. The idea that families should not collapse because of a single adverse event, whether in agriculture, health, or livelihood guided many decisions. As CPRO I sometimes participated in discussions where the communicative emphasis was carefully shaped that, assistance should be understood as stabilization, not dependency. Even when I was not directly involved in the policy stage, I was often brought in at the articulation stage, where clarity of purpose mattered as much as clarity of language.

When I say ‘KCR Leading by Example’ it acquired a very concrete meaning during times of crisis. I personally witnessed, as CPRO, how he chose field presence over remote control. He believed that in moments of fear or uncertainty, the physical presence of leadership carries administrative as well as psychological value. His visits to institutions, interaction with affected people, and direct conversations with frontline personnel were not symbolic gestures. They were confidence-building exercises. In communicating these moments, our PR Professional Team did not dramatize but faithfully conveyed the human intent behind KCR’s action.

His interaction style also offered lessons. He would ask questions at the ground level, about process, comfort, service quality, and practical difficulty, in a manner that reduced distance between authority and citizen. Observing this repeatedly, and occasionally facilitating the communication around such visits as his CPRO, I and my PR Team, realized that leadership example is also a method of administrative audit conducted through empathy.

Another striking feature was his insistence that public representatives and officials remain among people outside election cycles. Governance, he would say, must be continuous contact, not seasonal outreach. In several press release exercises this theme was reinforced, that politics should pause where development must proceed. KCR urged people to distinguish between divisive mobilization and constructive progress, and I found myself often shaping that message for wider understanding.

His public addresses combined conviction with accessibility. He spoke as one who wished to persuade, not merely pronounce. Having observed and processed many such speeches, I can say that, his oratory functioned as a governance tool, translating complex intent into intelligible public language. He did not rely on scripted prompts and his command over subject and sentiment flowed together. My role was often to ensure that the communicated essence remained intact across platforms, and my colleagues did a wonderful job.

If I may place this segment in the broader flow of my journey, this phase, as seen and recorded by me as CPRO, represents governance practiced through personal example, social assurance, and livelihood orientation. It complements the institutional experiences narrated earlier and prepares the ground for the developments that follow. The continuity becomes clearer when viewed in total, but that reflection properly belongs at a later stage of the narrative.

In continuing this reflection on how KCR was leading by example, one of the most striking dimensions that unfolded before me, both through direct association and through my professional role was, his approach to empowerment, particularly of historically disadvantaged communities. What stood out was that, empowerment in his governance vocabulary, was never treated as a symbolic assurance or a limited welfare gesture. It was conceived as a decisive shift in social and economic positioning, intended to replace dependence with ownership and hesitation with confidence.

Taking advantage of my position as CPRO, I repeatedly sensed that his thinking moved beyond conventional assistance models. He often spoke, in reviews, consultations, and public articulation, of the need to alter the starting point itself. Instead of asking how much support should be given, he would examine how full capacity could be unlocked. This difference in approach influenced not only policy direction but also the manner in which it had to be communicated. I found myself, at several points, aligning the narrative tone to reflect dignity-centered empowerment rather than benefit-centered delivery.

His method was consultative but decisive. He preferred to listen across sections, community voices, representatives, thinkers, administrators, and then shape a course that carried both moral conviction and operational clarity. As his CPRO, I observed these extended deliberative exercises from close quarters, and at other times encountered their distilled essence when tasked with communicating their spirit. The emphasis was always on participation, not token presence; on shared ownership, not selective endorsement.

What particularly impressed me was his insistence that empowerment must translate into visible self-reliance. He believed that unless an individual or a family gained the means to stand economically secure through their own chosen activity, social equality would remain incomplete. The idea was not to temporarily lift but to permanently position. In internal and external messaging that passed through my desk as CPRO to CM, I noticed how carefully this distinction was preserved: empowerment as transition, not transaction.

Another feature of his example-led governance was that empowerment was never isolated from ecosystem support. He would simultaneously speak of capacity, monitoring, protection, and continuity. In his view, when people are newly enabled, systems must stand beside them until stability becomes habit. I recall, how often this layered thinking had to be explained, that opportunity, guidance, and safeguard are not separate stages but parallel supports.

His engagement with the subject was not episodic. It carried emotional depth as well as intellectual preparation. He approached social inequity not as an abstract theme but as a lived historical imbalance that required corrective imagination. Observing this repeatedly, sometimes during field interactions, sometimes through his unscripted reflections, I recognized that leading by example here meant investing personal conviction into public policy. My role frequently required to ensure that this conviction was neither diluted nor overstated in transmission. My PR Professional Team helped me a lot.

Equally noteworthy was KCR’s call for collective responsibility beyond party lines when it came to empowerment initiatives. He would frame such efforts as societal missions rather than governmental programs. From where I stood as CPRO, I could see that he deliberately elevated the discourse so that cooperation became a moral expectation, not merely a political option. The language he used in such contexts was inclusive, forward-looking, and responsibility-oriented, and I took particular care to preserve that character in every related communication.

His public articulation during major announcements in this area also reflected example-based leadership. He did not merely outline intent, but he explained reasoning, anticipated doubts, and addressed concerns in advance. The speeches were not rhetorical displays but explanatory bridges. Having processed and disseminated several such addresses as CPRO, I can state that they were designed to create understanding first and approval next, and certainly, never the other way around.

What emerges from this phase of governance, as I witnessed and interpreted it in my capacity as CPRO, is a consistent pattern: empowerment treated as structural correction, dignity treated as policy foundation, and leadership demonstrated through personal intellectual and moral investment. It is another important layer in understanding how example functioned as an instrument of governance in his hands.