Raghuveera blames those four leaders

Congress AP president Raghuveera Reddy accused these three leaders of doing injustice to Andhra Pradesh, particularly in relation to the AP Reorganisation Act 2014.

Raghuveera Reddy said that the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh had lost heavily after bifurcation only because of the failure of these four leaders. He claimed that the Congress-led UPA government which had bifurcated the State, had promised so much for the residuary State, but those benefits were not received with the BJP-led NDA coming to power at the Centre and the TDP coming to power in the State.

The four leaders he held responsible for the sad state of affairs in Andhra Pradesh are – Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, YSR Cogress chief Jaganmohan Reddy and Jana Sena chief Pawan Kalyan.

He said that Modi had denied the special category status to the State and diluted the implementation of other benefits. Chandrababu Naidu had accepted the denial of special category status and dilution of other benefits. Jaganmohan Reddy and Pawan Kalyan are silent on these issues except for the lip sympathy that they express time to time.

While holding Narendra Modi and Chandrababu Naidu as A1 and A2, as they are in power, he held Jaganmohan Reddy and Pawan Kalyan as A3 and A4 for remaining blind to the injustice and not representing the voice of the people as Opposition parties.

However, he did not say where the Congress stands in this issue. The Congress had not included the SCS in the Act. The Congress did not clearly promise the railway zone, steel plant, sea port and other benefits and had only said “shall examine” instead of saying “shall give or shall establish”.

Though it is a fact that the AP Congress had been fighting the SCS and other bifurcation benefits and AICC president Rahul Gandhi had promised to give SCS to the State if he is voted to power, their responsibility or irresponsibility towards Andhra Pradesh at the time of bifurcation is not ignored. The blame is on the Congress for not clearly mentioning or promising the benefits in the Act giving them legal and constitutional binding on the successive government.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*