Political Realignments and Strategic Positioning {Reflections on Modi, KCR, Chandrababu Naidu, Jagan, and Revanth}: Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 Political Realignments and Strategic Positioning

Reflections on Modi, KCR, 

Chandrababu Naidu, Jagan, and Revanth 

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

The Hans India (07-05-2025)

India’s political landscape is witnessing a profound realignment, with ‘Cooperative Federalism’ evolving as ‘Strategic Positioning.’ Recently Prime Minister Narendra Modi characteristically lauded Chandrababu Naidu as the best example of a ‘Visionary Leader.’ Pledging his support for development, he described the Greenfield Amaravati Capital conceived by Babu, as ‘Dream Realized.’ Likewise, his nuanced endorsement of the Telangana ‘Caste Survey’ done by Revanth Reddy, despite the fact that, it was bitterly criticized by BRS, signals a shift in socio-political policy and ‘Recalibration of Center-State Political Dynamics.’  

In a strategic pivot that preceded Amaravathi Show, Modi calculatedly articulated with cautious political phrasing, towards the caste-based enumeration. The politically advantageous decision was spurred by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s bold move to initiate and complete caste census, despite minor procedural hiccups. This ‘Watershed Moment’ propelled and placed the BJP in a reactive position, compelling Narendra Modi to embrace the policy in principle. Revanth’s initiative triggered a ‘Nationwide Ripple Effect’ reshaping political discourse. Modi has his own reasons to adopt TG Model.

In this precise context, a critical examination of ‘Political Realignments, Strategic Positioning, Reflections on Narendra Modi, K Chandrashekhar Rao, N Chandrababu Naidu, YS Jaganmohan Reddy, and A Revanth Reddy’ offers compelling insights. For instance, Modi exemplifies explicitly, with a rare blend of ‘Managerial Precision, Leadership Clarity, and Political Acumen, Projecting Statesmanship’ though critics adversely highlight his centralizing tendencies and selective federal engagement. 

‘Leader-Statesman’ KCR, and a towering figure in the Telangana Statehood Movement, Governed Telangana as Chief Minister for a decade. Despite electoral setbacks, KCR retains strategic depth, long-term vision and commitment to Telangana’s identity and autonomy. Chandrababu Naidu, an adept administrator, showcases ‘Managerial Finesse’ but often falters and struggles to translate it into lasting political capital or statesmanlike stature. YS Jaganmohan Reddy with his uncanny ability, excels at converting political vulnerabilities into fleeting strengths, yet his reactive and non-proactive governance lacks visionary depth. Revanth Reddy combines energy and tactical flair, succeeding in capturing attention and power quickly. Revanth’s leadership reflects and embodies the wisdom of a true statesman emerging.

These distinct trajectories underscore a shifting power dynamic, where success hinges and shrewdness lies not only on governance but also on aligning with the deeper undercurrents of India’s federal and social fabric. In Indian politics, alliances and rivalries are fluid, and rarely etched in stone. They are deliberately shaped by momentary needs and shift with the appetite of the moment, much like a daily meal, that served when hunger strikes, and set aside when it does not. The relationship between Modi and Chandrababu Naidu exemplifies this phenomenon, like a Textbook Orthodox case. They are marked by calculated separations, equally calculated reconciliations, and reunions of expediency driven by pragmatism rather than ideology. Distinctly, this paid rich dividends to both.  

Their Bonhomie evident in May 2014, saw the Modi Government issue an ordinance, unconstitutionally, undemocratically, controversially, and unilaterally, transferring seven tribal-area mandals from Telangana to AP under the pretext of constructing ‘Polavaram Dam Paper Project’ disregarding federal principles and tribal rights. Despite such ‘Concessions’ Chandrababu Naidu parted ways in 2018 over unmet demands for special status to AP. Political necessities later prompted realignment, restoring Chandrababu Naidu to power triumphantly. 

The reorganization of erstwhile AP State marked a pivotal and defining moment in Indian federalism, carving out two ‘Distinct Political Theatres’: Telangana and Residual AP, on June 2, 2014. Telangana emerged with fulfillment, while AP grappled with loss and the burden of rebuilding with a feeling of uncertainty emerged. In the decade that followed, these divergent emotional inheritances shaped not only states’ politics but also the nature of their respective relationships with Modi’s Union Government. The contrasting trajectories of ‘KCR, Chandrababu, Jagan, and Revanth’ illustrate how strategic alignment or emotional discord with the Centre influences political longevity, development priorities, and national relevance. Worth a political case study by Harward indeed!!! 

KCR enjoying robust, comfortable, and overwhelming mandate in his two terms, was seen as Telangana’s sole guardian and custodian of Telangana’s interests. However, his emotional capital gradually waned amid perceived isolation. Despite concerted, earnest, and sincere efforts by KCR to leverage Centre’s support for ‘Telangana’s Overall Development’ and thus capitalizing on the center’s support, PM Modi construed his stance with suspicion and with skepticism. This unfortunately led to an untold rivalry between KCR and Modi, the-True Leaders and Statesmen, irrespective of who was at loss.

India is the world’s Largest Parliamentary Democracy and operates within the ‘Federal Structure’ underpinned by ‘Cooperative Federalism.’ Over time, this cooperative spirit and ethos were diluted and eroded. While ‘Federalism’ delineates constitutional power-sharing, with division of powers between the central and state governments, ‘Cooperative Federalism’ emphasizes mutual responsibilities. But in ‘Competitive Federalism’ that gradually emerged, Centre and states competed for everything.

KCR consistently advocated that the Centre should focus on domains like foreign affairs, defense, and national security, while states should control the rest of the subjects, including reservations for SCs, STs, and Minorities. Balancing cordial Centre-State relations with state autonomy was paramount for KCR. In no uncertain words, he ascertained state’s rights when it comes to upholding self-respect. His vocal pursuit to achieve his objective sparked friction. Nevertheless, his statesmanlike approach upheld the ‘Cooperative Federal Spirit’ and he conducted the best way that suits this spirit. There were several instances when KCR extended his support to Modi, despite several eyebrows were raised.

KCR backed Modi and supported his policies like formation of NITI Ayog, GST, Demonetization, etc. believing that, they would largely benefit Telangana. On international platforms and global forums, such as the World Economic Forum in China, KCR was very cautious and patriotically defended India’s federal structure, emphasizing Modi’s devolution of powers to states. KCR-Modi’s Love-Hate Relationship, but not a political alignment, was in tune with ‘Vibrant Parliamentary Democratic Principles’ and spirit of Cooperative Federalism, notwithstanding occasional aberrations.  

Chandrababu Naidu, the Residual AP First Chief Minister, envisioned Amaravati as a global capital, with an ambitious plan, but lacked consistent and sustained central backing. Naidu mistakenly distanced himself from Modi. This led to a breakdown in Centre-AP State coordination during his first tenure’s final years. YS Jaganmohan Reddy, riding and capitalizing on a wave of sympathy and the enduring YSR legacy, secured a 2019 landslide. His Governance Model including concept of three capitals policy remained narrowly focused, and his relationship with Modi though appeared cordial, remained passive. This sort of alignment with Modi lacked strategic depth or vocal assertiveness. He failed to be either neutral or vocal or strategical.   

Revanth Reddy, succeeding KCR post-2023 Assembly elections, demonstrated modern political maturity essential for survival. What importantly sets Revanth apart is, he successfully recalibrated Telangana’s Centre approach, favoring persuasion over provocation, strategically bold and being loud. This is in contrast to KCR’s confrontational or to be more apt, the mixed legacy with reference to Center and Modi. Eventually, Revanth Reddy’s approach suits modern day politicking and diplomatic finesse. KCR’s relationship with the Modi Government deteriorated over time. His critiques and persistent criticism on unhelpful central schemes, absence from purposeless Chief Ministers’ Meetings in Delhi, and pointed criticism of Centre’s policies estranged him from Modi and the BJP.  The Centre retaliated with cold diplomacy, often bypassing KCR even during Prime Minister visits. 

Today, the Telugu states exemplify a reshaping of Centre-State Dynamics. Young Revanth Reddy and aging Chandrababu Naidu, represent a new regional leadership breed, blending state assertiveness with national pragmatism. Their willingness to collaborate with Modi, while preserving distinct political identities, position them as apt partners in India’s evolving federal landscape, neither as ideological allies of the BJP, nor as habitual adversaries. The ever-changing art of strategy lies not in ‘Opposition or Obedience’ but in ‘Calibrated Collaboration’ where regional leaders wield influence by aligning their wisdom and judgement with the ‘Rhythms of Federal Fluidity.’