The participation of party leaders in government reviews, seen as an attempt to blur the lines between the government and the party, drew criticism from the BJP.
Published Apr 08, 2025 | 3:14 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 08, 2025 | 3:14 PM
Meenakshi Natarajan during a meeting with Congress leaders. (X)
Synopsis: The BJP criticized Meenakshi Natarajan’s involvement in talks with the Telangana government regarding the University of Hyderabad, calling it an attempt to blur party-government lines. Congress defended her participation, likening it to any other representation. Despite protests from students, the state government sought dialogue over confrontation, addressing concerns about biodiversity preservation on disputed land.
The presence of AICC in-charge for Telangana, Meenakshi Natarajan, and CWC special invitee, Ch Vamshi Chand Reddy, during talks the three-member committee of ministers had with stakeholders of the University of Hyderabad (HCU) on Monday, 8 April, raised many an eyebrow.
This marked the second instance of Natarajan conferring with the state government at the secretariat with the ministerial committee. On Saturday, 5 April, she met with the committee to assess the situation.
The participation of party leaders in government reviews, seen as an attempt to blur the lines between the government and the party, drew criticism from the BJP.
Union Minister of State for Home Bandi Sanjay Kumar questioned how a party leader could partake in reviews, which he said had indicated the depths to which Congress rule in the state had sunk. He expressed outrage at her involvement in what is essentially government business, asking, “How can a Congress leader hold a review meeting at the state secretariat?”
The BJP’s criticism came against the backdrop of neither Meenakshi Natarajan nor Vamshi Chand Reddy being part of the committee tasked with initiating dialogue with stakeholders. Although it was suggested that Natarajan acted as a bridge between the students and the government, no official confirmation supported this claim.
She reportedly brought to the government’s attention her observations from an attempted visit to the disputed area in Kanha Gachibowli on Saturday, where she was turned back due to prohibitory orders. She also took representations from students regarding their concerns over the potential loss of flora and fauna if the jungle is cleared.
Bandi Sanjay Kumar further remarked that the AICC’s overreach into state government affairs underscored the extent to which Chief Minister Revanth Reddy had become a rubber stamp under the party’s high command. He claimed the state government had collapsed, citing Natarajan’s review as evidence.
The Congress, however, stoutly defended her discussing the issue with the group of ministers in the Secretariat. Former MP Madhu Yashki Goud said, “I fail to see why anyone should take objection to it. Natarajan went to the secretariat like anyone who wants to give a representation to a minister. You may find fault if a minister visits her at her place and discusses the issue.”
He wondered what the BJP would say if he were to ask its leaders why Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to discuss national issues. “There is nothing wrong if Natarajan met the Congress ministers at the state secretariat,” he said.
On Monday, the Joint Action Committee of students boycotted the meeting, protesting the state government’s refusal to meet their immediate demands, including the withdrawal of police forces, dropping cases against students, and allowing researchers and teachers to assess the damage to biodiversity in the Kancha Gachibowli area. Some demands were conceded after the meeting.
The state government had constituted the three-member ministerial committee, headed by Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, to address the stakeholders’ concerns about preserving biodiversity on the disputed Kancha Gachibowli land. The other members are D Sridhar Babu (IT and Industries) and P Srinivasa Reddy (Revenue).
As the students’ agitation, backed by the opposition BRS and BJP, escalated into a major controversy, it embarrassed the state government, no end. Despite a Supreme Court verdict affirming the government’s ownership of the land, it preferred conciliation to confrontation.
Accordingly, the ministerial committee, formed on 3 April, held talks with the officials concerned and later discussed the way forward with the HCU teachers’ association and civil society members.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
