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.
