Their strategic brilliance has toppled dynasties and reshaped electoral landscapes. Yet, in the Telugu-speaking states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, their political acumen falters.
Published Jul 08, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 08, 2025 | 9:00 AM
BJP in Telugu states. (X)
Synopsis: Despite BJP’s national dominance under Modi and Shah, it struggles in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh due to misread regional dynamics, weak leadership choices, and overreliance on alliances. In Telangana, sidelining Bandi Sanjay hurt momentum; in Andhra, the party remains a junior partner. The BJP must choose between building independent strength or clinging to coalition politics.
Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have redefined Indian politics, planting the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) saffron flag in unlikely terrains like West Bengal, where its ideology once found little traction.
Their strategic brilliance has toppled dynasties and reshaped electoral landscapes. Yet, in the Telugu-speaking states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, their political acumen falters.
The BJP’s recent decisions, particularly in Telangana, reveal a perplexing disconnect from the region’s complex political currents, rooted in its unique history and voter psyche. Is the high command misinformed, or does it simply fail to grasp the Telugu states’ distinct dynamics?
The appointment of N Ramachander Rao as Telangana’s BJP state president has sparked widespread dismay. Speculation abounds: some attribute it to Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief Chandrababu Naidu’s influence, others to a potential alliance with the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).
Yet, no one within the party views this as a calculated move to strengthen the BJP or seize power. At Rao’s swearing-in, the lack of enthusiasm was palpable, with grassroots workers—crucial to the BJP’s cadre-driven structure—showing little zeal.
Social media murmurs and pursed lips among cadres reflect deep discontent, forcing leaders like Bandi Sanjay to issue stern warnings against dissent. Does the high command not see the erosion of morale brewing within its ranks?
Telangana’s political identity, forged in its hard-fought statehood movement, demands leaders who resonate with local aspirations. The BJP’s centralized decision-making overlooks this cultural nuance, alienating voters who value regional agency.
Historically, the party was a marginal player in Telangana. Before the 2014 bifurcation, it relied on alliances, such as with the TDP, to secure a handful of seats. Leaders like G Kishan Reddy carried the party’s hopes, but even he suffered defeat in the 2018 early assembly elections.
Only Raja Singh’s victory in Goshamahal, propelled by polarizing Hindutva rhetoric, salvaged the BJP’s pride.
The tide turned dramatically in 2020 when Bandi Sanjay assumed the state presidency. A relatively unknown leader from Karimnagar, Sanjay leveraged his grassroots appeal to transform the BJP into a formidable force. His padyatras, bold confrontations with the BRS, and unapologetic rhetoric electrified the cadre. By July 2023, the BJP was seen as the BRS’s primary challenger—a remarkable ascent in a state where it once languished in obscurity.
Sanjay’s tenure was not without controversy. His provocative statements stirred debate but galvanized the Backward Classes, earning him recognition as a rising leader. Had he remained president, the BJP might have avoided its precipitous decline in North Telangana during the 2023 assembly elections. As Sanjay lamented, the Congress “snatched the food from our mouths,” a pointed critique of the party’s strategic missteps.
Replacing him with Kishan Reddy in July 2023 sent the BJP’s fortunes plummeting. The narrative shifted overnight. Congress emerged as the frontrunner, bolstered by the BRS’s failure to face repercussions in the Delhi liquor scam. Leaders like Rajagopal Reddy, who had joined the BJP expecting it to supplant the BRS, defected to Congress, sensing a lost cause.
The 2024 Lok Sabha elections offered a glimmer of redemption. The BJP capitalized on the BRS’s eroding vote bank, securing a 35.1 percent vote share—double its assembly election performance—and clinching eight seats. The BRS, with a mere 16.7 percent vote share, lost deposits in BJP-won constituencies, signalling a clear voter shift.
Telugu voters, wary of entrenched powers, reward parties that project strength and independence.
Yet, the BJP’s high command faltered, failing to exploit Congress’s governance lapses or curb internal factionalism. Appointing Rao, a leader uninterested in contesting elections, baffled observers when stronger contenders like Eatala Rajender, with leadership ambitions, or Dharmapuri Arvind, eager to dismantle the BRS, were available.
Even Bandi Sanjay, now a Union Minister, reiterated his commitment to Telangana politics over a central role, yet the high command sidelined his proven leadership.
Rao’s appointment suggests a risky strategy: an alliance with or absorption of the BRS.
Telangana’s voters, however, favour third alternatives when power oscillates between two dominant parties, as seen in Punjab’s Aam Aadmi Party triumph. Aligning with a weakened BRS risks alienating those seeking a fresh, independent option.
The BJP’s high command appears to lack faith in its own leaders, favouring dependency over autonomous governance. Have Modi and Shah, the architects of the BJP’s national dominance, misread Telangana’s political ethos?
In Andhra Pradesh, the BJP’s approach is less contentious but equally uninspired. Historically reliant on coalitions, the party struggles with divided loyalties—some leaders align with the YSR Congress Party, others with the TDP.
Madhav’s selection as state president faced minimal opposition, as few coveted the role. A committed BJP loyalist, Madhav was a safe choice, but it reflects a focus on maintaining coalition ties over building an independent base.
The BJP’s missteps in the Telugu states are a cautionary tale. In Telangana, it squandered momentum by sidelining dynamic leaders, undermining cadre morale.
In Andhra Pradesh, it prioritized alliances over growth. As the BJP navigates these complex landscapes, it must decide: will it govern on its own terms, or remain a junior partner tethered to coalitions? For a party led by master strategists, the path forward remains frustratingly elusive.
(Views expressed here are personal, edited by Sumavarsha)
