The civil society played a role in BRS's defeat. In many instances, it worked in coordination with Congress. In other words, civil society's dissatisfaction with BRS's governance was used by Congress to its advantage.
Published Mar 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 19, 2025 | 7:49 PM
Recent instances of BRS leaders trolling civil society representatives who are neutral or those who remind the regional party of its own excesses during the 10-year-rule vis-à-vis the current Congress dispensation will do no good.
Synopsis: The BRS still has a problematic relationship with the Telangana civil society after its defeat in the 2023 election. Opposition parties should naturally form a bond with civil society. However, that has not happened. The relationship between BRS (previously TRS) and civil society has remained the same as when it was in power. Even after stepping down from power, BRS continues behaving like it is still in power.
Having lost power just 15 months ago and forced to sit in the Opposition, why is the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) engaging itself in a duel with Telangana’s civil society, being derisive at
the very least and offensive at its worst?
The recent instances of BRS leaders trolling civil society representatives who are neutral or those who remind the regional party of its own excesses during the 10 year rule vis-à-vis the current Congress dispensation will do no good as it seeks to reestablish the lost connection with the people.
What constitutes a civil society? Italian communist leader Antonio Gramsci opined that state institutions implement cultural and ideological dominance through their various departments. They shape the thoughts of the people.
Similarly, civil society is also an instrument for establishing dominance. Institutions and individuals not part of the state participate in conflicts of interest as part of civil society. They try
to shape the thoughts of the people in different ways and help in creating alternatives.
We do not use the term “civil society” today in the exact sense that Gramsci described it but his definition provides a basic understanding. Organisations working at the grassroots level, without directly engaging in politics, researchers, intellectuals, human rights organisations supporting public movements, voluntary organisations trying to put pressure on the government for the implementation of public policies, analysts, commentators, and intellectuals with respect in society — all of them are considered part of civil society. This is not a unified entity. It can exist as fragmented or disconnected groups, with no coordination.
In any society, there is a possibility for a group of influential individuals to have a moral level and special influence that matches the power structures, but in a democracy, this is even more possible, and they have more power. Civil society can stand as a measure of values for the entire society.
Rulers who come to power through sheer force generally do not confront civil society. If civil society is tiny or has little influence, they do not interfere with it. However, when civil society supports forces that challenge their authority or when civil society checks the implementation of the value system they wish to establish strong states or governments will step in. They will begin a propaganda war to discredit independent voices.
Before the Emergency, Indira Gandhi promoted the notion that Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan was a CIA agent. In the eleven years of BJP rule now, we are witnessing severe attacks, often indecent, on the credibility of everyone who holds democratic, liberal, and leftist views. We have seen intellectuals and activists working in different fields falsely implicated in a single conspiracy.
The democratic civil society that was created during last seven decades of independent India, is now depicted as an unreliable, dishonourable, and disloyal group. To implement authoritarianism with majority support, it is necessary to silence civil society. This tendency is seen in the BJP and all dominant parties. It is even visible in regional parties, being a case in point. This phenomenon is beginning to show up now.
The BRS still has a problematic relationship with the Telangana civil society after its defeat in the
2023 election. Opposition parties should naturally form a bond with civil society. However, that has not happened. The relationship between BRS (previously TRS) and civil society has remained the same as when it was in power. Even after stepping down from power, BRS continues behaving like it is still in power.
Civil society believes that the negative impact of the BRS’s 10-year rule on the lives of the people is still being felt. Civil society representatives criticise BRS for being biased and following dual values. In turn, BRS supporters are attacking the credibility of such voices on social media.
Civil society played a crucial role in the Telangana movement. Before BRS even started the movement for political self-rule, Telangana was already fighting through various platforms against regional inequalities, atrocities by landlords, state violence and devastation of resources. Civil society in Telangana took shape out of these struggles. The first steps of the movement were also taken by civil society, which included poets, artists, intellectuals, and social workers.
Even though BRS was formed as a political party in 2001, civil society in Telangana had more power than the party and its leader, K Chandrashekar Rao (KCR), at that time. The role of civil society is evident in the moral and intellectual guidance it provided to the movement, especially through thinkers like Prof Jayashankar, whom KCR considered his mentor.
A regional party was needed for a regional identity struggle. Unfortunately, regional parties in our country have evolved into personality-centred or family-based parties. Even when they become hereditary or personality-based parties, some of them manage to retain their foundational ideologies.
For example, while Akali Dal has become a family party, it still continues its core principles in some form. Similarly, even though DMK is a hereditary party, it has preserved Dravidian ideology in a weakened form. However, Telugu Desam Party has completely absorbed all the negative traits of regional parties, and the ideals that NTR spoke about when the party was founded are now forgotten. What was once a party born for federalism now seeks to establish centralised power, even as part of a coalition that seeks to destroy federal ideals.
It would have been better if the BRS had continued as an ideological party for a longer time. However, as soon as it came to power, KCR immediately focused on consolidating its power and eliminating any and every rival power centre. KCR focused on increasing his public appeal and
structuring the party around himself and his family.
Over time, the forces that had worked with KCR in the movement were either sidelined or weakened. The claims that civil society would review and assess his rule have faded. There was no
dialogue between the government and the society. There were no opportunities for submission of reports, expressions, or public participation.
It is a mistake to think that civil society started criticising KCR because he kept them away from him. The fact is that due to this distancing, the government gradually became disconnected
from the ground realities. The BRS (then TRS) would have suffered a jolt in 2018 if Congress had not tied up with the Telugu Desam. With another term in power, KCR became more complacent.
During the decade-long rule, the BRS dispensation had no particular distinctiveness in terms of development or governance. The governance continued in a mixed manner, similar to the regimes of YS Rajasekhara Reddy and N Chandrababu Naidu. Though there were welfare schemes that provided immediate benefits to voters, there was no money for long-term infrastructure and services. Education and health faced severe neglect. The prioritisation of irrigation projects seemed unclear between Telangana’s needs and political motives.
Even small protests were subjected to restrictions. House arrests of political opponents were common whenever any minister went on a tour. Nobody opposes a favourite leader like KCR
without reason. The livid experience of people was reflected in the 2023 election.
Indeed, civil society played a role in BRS’s defeat. In many instances, it worked in coordination with Congress. In other words, civil society’s dissatisfaction with BRS’s governance was used by Congress to its advantage. Why did civil society, which should remain neutral, take this step?
Technically, they were not in alliance with Congress. However, there was unity between civil society and the national issues raised during Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra. Civil society’s desire to defeat KCR’s government aligned with Congress’s interests.
Growing opposition to BRS in the state, and the need to prevent BJP’s rise nationally, led civil society to take a pro-Congress stance.
If the BRS now has intense anger against the Telangana civil society, the above backdrop is the reason behind it. After A Revanth Reddy assumed office, while there was some sense of relief in terms of democratic activity, there have been no major changes. Election promises are not being fulfilled — some dissatisfaction among the people has started showing, but it hasn’t yet taken shape. The state is in flux now.
It’s possible that some prominent voices in the civil society are still not vocal in criticising the Congress government. Others have begun being critical, mildly or strongly. The level of
dissatisfaction is different at different levels. Just as KCR is preferring to stay silent even as his son, KT Rama Rao and nephew, T Harish Rao, are strident in their attack.
What the Opposition party leaders seem to be forgetting is that one could find a parallel in the BRS regime for any and every undemocratic action of Revanth Reddy – from government policies to responses towards people’s issues. For the BRS to expect the civil society and people at large to condone the ills of their 10-year rule in just 14 months and return to their fold is unfair. This is a country where people forgot the excesses of the Emergency and brought Indira Gandhi back to power in three years.
KCR’s time will also come – it would and should happen naturally. Until then, BRS leaders need to exercise restraint, introspect, and engage with civil society. Trolling representatives of civil society and distancing them in the process is no solution. Civil society is a neutral platform. If it is destroyed, there will be no trustworthy systems left. Social media wings of political parties are not an alternative to civil society.
(The writer is a senior journalist and former editor of Andhra Jyothi, a Telugu daily. Views are personal).
